A news splashed across the headlines a few days ago: Stephen Hawking: ‘There is no heaven; it’s a fairy story’.
To most people this may appear as a final statement from ‘Science’ refuting the ‘Religion’. After all Stephen Hawking is supposed to be the most scientific person living on earth today. The hype around him is as if he is the Einstein or Newton of today! (Ironically Einstein and Newton were anything but atheists.)
But what was more baffling to my humble mind than the question of afterlife was what made this news so prominently covered! I came with several hypotheses and am not sure which one is true: That people in media have valid subliminal reasons to find every reason to refute any entity that accounts for their deeds! Or perhaps any masala news that can be hyped up to bring readership is all they stand for! Or perhaps an eternally confused population serves their business interests best! I leave it upon readers to research on this puzzle while I pen my thoughts on the said news on afterlife.
1. The news is no different than another news that came around same time – “Shahrukh Khan has started loving puppies”. Every person in a civilized world is entitled to have his or her free opinions and voice them. So there is nothing objectionable about Shahrukh loving puppies or Hawking asserting that he does not believe in afterlife or Hawking suddenly leaving his wife who cared for him for decades and children at age of 53 to marry his nurse simply because he felt an emotional pull. The only problem is that there is nothing scientific or conclusively justifiable about these. They remain personal preferences, and they should be allowed to remain so.
It is just that a group of non-technical journalists – who rule the media business – tend to be the final filter for the world to tell them what science is or what religion is or what business is. And layman is covertly duped to follow what they say…very subtly. Welcome to the era of surrogate and not-so-surrogate mass-brainwashing!
Coming straight to point – Shahrukh Khan made no breakthrough research on why puppies should be loved henceforth. Nor did Stephen Hawking formulate any plausible theory that conclusively refutes the existence of God or afterlife. All he has done is to post his personal views based upon his experiences and experiments that failed to discover such a theory, combined with perhaps a natural repulsion to the concept of accountability of all actions, thoughts and words derived from the very same experiences and experiments in life.
2. Stephen Hawking is undoubtedly a very sharp mind and a marvelous physicist cum mathematician. His struggle against motor neuron disease is a source of inspiration for all of us. It demonstrates clearly the triumph of will as mentioned in Vedas.
Nonetheless Stephen Hawking remains the most over-hyped scientist of our era. Who shot to fame because in his struggle with disabilities coupled with brilliance lay a fantastic story that could be sold in public. Bantam Books marketed his ‘Brief History of Time’ as creation of an Einstein incarnate. The book was a bestseller though hardly anyone could understand it. And many a claims made in book had to be debunked in the next decade by many including Hawking himself. But the hype continued. This is the nature of hype – it needs a perceivable basis to begin with and then it continues on its own even when the basis no more exists- like a rocket.
Among layman Hawking continues to be the most sale-able story on science being equated with Einstein legends. However among physicists its a different story. In a survey conducted few years ago in Physics World, the reputed journal on physics, top physicists of the world were asked to vote for the greatest practitioner of their profession. Einstein topped with 119 votes followed by Newton with 46 votes. Stephen Hawking shared the last position with many others with 1 vote each.
This is not to belittle the brilliance of Hawking. He is among the best in the profession. He is a wonderful personality. But the point is that this does not make him the final word in matters of life, afterlife, or even physics for that matter.
3. The greatest irony in the superfluous denial of afterlife by Stephen Hawking based on his personal preferences (and no science or maths whatsoever!) is that his very existence today is based on the fact that majority of the world believes – actively or passively – in afterlife and even the legal systems, social structures, education system, governments are all derived from the belief that death is not end of the life. Because most people are hooked naturally to believe that future is never eternal darkness and there is more to look up to, and that all actions are accounted for, we don’t have a majority of rapists, cannibals on our planet.
Just assume for a while that the entire world indeed starts believing that there is no afterlife and maximization of fun in the next few seconds, minutes, hours, months, years is all that life is all about. Now what is the incentive for me to not kill a person if I can have his wealth or taste his salty flesh? Why should I not indulge in loot, plunder, rape, incest, murder, cheating, fraud if these titillate my sensory organs and I can ensure that I am smart and strong enough to evade being caught. Why should I not take and give bribes and do big scams? Why should I not commit fraud and suppress the suppressed? And why should not I eat up Stephen Hawking raw instead of countering his flawed logic? After all even Stephen Hawking asserted in same news story that “We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those societies most likely to survive. We assign them higher value.”
So Mr Hawking is countering the very foundation that has ensured that he lives in the world safely and securely despite his profound physical disabilities and irritation he is bringing to many through his views! The snake is eating its own tail!
4. So we see that concept of an after-life is essential to maintain order, ethics, values and morals in the world. It ensures that bulk of the people naturally incline towards helping the old and caring for the babies instead of conspiring to eat them up. They would not steal from a shop even when no one is watching! They would not see every woman in the family through eyes of lust and value the relationships of sister, mother and daughter. And when they default on any of these ideals due to habits or instincts, they would find ways to compensate for these through other benevolent deeds.
The world is worth-living because thankfully the majority does not emulate Stephen Hawking. (Even USA – supposed to be hub of all scientific research – proudly asserts in its currency notes – “In God We Trust”). And the world is disgusting to live to the extent each of us has a doubt or misconception about after-life.
But this is not the only reason to believe in God and after-life. These concepts are not mere convenience mechanisms to ensure that humans do not turn cannibals. There is more to it.
5. The popular theory of Stephen Hawkings and Richard Dawkings of the world is that the earth, the life, the intelligence and the progress of civilization are all mere random events with extremely low probability. It all started with a big-bang sometime billion years ago. Then matter-energy transformations led to creation of a wide variety of things in the universe, then somewhere a sun got formed and a burning hot earth started revolving around it. As it cooled, some more chemical reactions happened. Then some complex proteins got formed. Then reactions took to such stable state that they could replicate themselves and join together absorbing wide varieties of forms. Thus multi-cellular organisms got formed. Now somehow the reactions created what is called DNA. And now things became even easier. Gradually a wide variety of species (aka chemical reactions) happened to exist. Many of them started having a brain. And one species which could use its thumb started having better development of brain. Over years, this became a modern human. Then his brain started having some chemical reactions that would force him to seek meaning and purpose of life. They would force him to be social, creative, spiritual, academic etc. So human civilization started. Other animals could not have such brain reactions because their thumb was not good. Now few centuries ago one deviant individual from this human chemical reaction put other chemicals together and made a printing press. Now suddenly information era began. Any human could become knowledgeable without necessarily having intelligence! This led to rapid transformations and then one more deviant used this printed knowledge and his intelligence to make the computer. Now chemicals..sorry humans…could do simulations to predict whatever they wanted. Few years later, one more deviant made internet. In between someone started companies that work only for profits, some else started advertisement to brainwash and help companies, news channels were opened, fashion started and what not. This all led to current complexities of life. This, in short is story of human life today that exists nowhere except on earth in whatever universe we have explored so far!
But to simplify even further, we are what we are and where we are through an extremely rare chance of probability that makes us so very very special and unique in middle of billions of km of playground (universe) that we can observe all around us. From a mathematical point of view, the probability of having organic life is next to zero. To have anything more than unicellular simple amoebas is billions time lesser. To have complex organisms like insects, reptiles, birds, mammals is still lesser by more than billion billion times. To have bisexual organisms that mature separately and yet are designed to be complementary and are necessary to come together to breed next generation is even rare. And then to have something like a human who could think and also have a special thumb is still rarer. But even rarer is the fact that only humans are the species to have developed such faculties that even force him to think of who he is, where he came from, where will he go. No elephant, tiger, lion, owl etc could obtain such faculties. Unlike Lord of the Rings where we have elves, hobbits and dwarfs, we have only humans possessing intelligence! The probability of all this happening is just a notch more than zero. A notch because we know it happened! And yet it is a random chance of luck!
Now let us consider another case. Suppose I gave you a coin to toss that I claim to be totally unbiased. You toss it hundred times and each time it comes as head. What would be your conclusion?
A. The coin is biased
B. The method of tossing is erroneous
I would refute. I would say, don’t be stupid. There is a probability of (0.5)^100 that it can come head in all tosses.I would say that you are so special and lucky to have been a witness to such rare probability. Perhaps if you are a simpleton, I would be able to convince you with flowery examples, great dialogues, sophism, display of mastery of probability and science and showing my credentials of being an eminent researcher as per some agency that is very popular in media.
So you perform another try. You toss the coin again 900 times. And after 1000 trials in total, you still get all heads. I would say – You are still luckier to have witnessed this phenomenon for first time in history of human civilization that has a probability of (0.5)^1000. In all probability, by now you would termed me a fraud and if the experiment had some pecuniary implications, you would be contemplating putting me in jail!
But since most people are very simple, I take this even further. I announce this as a great rare scientific phenomenon. I write some books wherein I explain what probability is, and then give examples of rare events happening, all to justify why there is no bias in coin and coming of heads even after 100,000 trials is still a random phenomenon. A publisher would hail me as greatest brain on earth ever, several others would justify that on basis of track record of good cricket matches that I played in my career and hence the hype is built. Then one group starts opposing me and this only increases the hype about me and keenness to await my next scientific miracle – like the octopus who predicted FIFA winners!
To add spice to the fantastic story, I now add a dice which always rolls to a 6 even after 100,000 trials. I then add a pack of cards from which a randomly chosen card is always King of Spade after an equal number of trials.
The conditions are that one can never test the coin, dice or the pack of cards and can never allege bias. Because assumption of bias is beyond the scope of rules of the game. No one ever saw anyone add bias to them and hence this is out of purview.
Now if you are beginning to believe that I have started going out of mind then let me tell you something. The probability of intelligent life thriving on planet earth with all the symbiosis and complexities that exist in every cell of the body, every natural cycle, every physiological function of the body, every social system etc etc etc is still far far lower than a coin giving head in all 100,000 trials AND a dice always rolling 6 after 100,000 rolls AND a King of Spade being chosen in each of 100,000 picks from a pack of cards!
So if I am a jerk because I claim that the coin that always tosses head, and the dice that always rolls 6 and the cards that always select King of Spade are unbiased, then those who claim that the entire process that led to intelligent life thinking about its own origin is a mere random event are even greater jerks!
And since the concept of ‘no after-life’ is merely an extrapolation of this jerky theory, it is equally crazy!
Please note that I am not asserting that evolution never happened or big bang never happened. I am also not asserting that the universe was created in 6 days or merely by some God saying: “Let there be light!”. In fact given available observations of laws of universe, that seems highly unlikely. However whether evolution happened or creation in few hours or a mix of two is all immaterial. What is material, based on available evidence, is that it is significantly more (at least billions of times) more probable that the entire creation process has been a planned process with a purpose rather than a mere random chance event! And that is exactly why barring a few neo-scientists, bulk of geniuses in the scientific fraternity never denied the existence of God or a Supreme Planner.
6. Let us understand what is the difference between a planned event and a random event. In reality, there is no way to assert whether an event is planned or random. When 1000 people suddenly start running on streets wearing same T Shirt and Pant, at 7 am on Sunday, we assume that this is a planned running event. This is because the probability of 1000 people having an inspiration to seek health through morning run after wearing the same T Shirt is highly unlikely. In other words, when an event happens whose probability is very low, we say it is a planned event. Lesser the probability, more the planning behind. This is the only way to deduce whether an event is planned or random, especially when you do not have sufficient options to conduct trials or show sufficiently large sample size of similar events happening.
Take for example, creation of the world. No scientist in the world can show even one single evidence of something automatically being created without someone applying planning skills to create it. Even a wiper of the car has to be manufactured with thorough planning. Under such situations, if intelligent life on earth is not a planned event, then the latest IPL or Cricket World Cup was also a purely random event. People just walked in to stadiums – as spectators, security guards, players, umpires, commentators, administrators, cheer leaders blah blah – randomly. We just chanced to witness the random phenomenon.
The ramblings of Stephen Hawking since ‘Brief History of Time’ to denial of after-life is also a purely random event, pre-decided by the way big-bang happened some billion years ago.
Yes, if intelligent life is random, so is everything else including the assertion that life is random. Even the inspiration behind voicing this assertion is a purely random chemical process!
7. So after discovering that those who deny afterlife are those who would agree that even Olympics was a random event, let us now explore further loopholes of the theory. The assumption that death means destruction of a computer assumes that consciousness is a processor in this computer. Hawking says that there is no use of broken down computers in Heaven and hence afterlife does not exist. Sounds poetic. But that’s all about it.
Scientists have been unable to discover the seat of consciousness in body. Dead has never been revived like in Horror Movies. Nor could anyone pinpoint the location of consciousness. Forget about consciousness, scientists fail to understand how the brain works except that some electric signals travel all around. Even the motor-neuron disease of Hawking is a mystery. Scientists are baffled over how termite colonies work with such great team work when each terimite has minimal intelligence. And how the brain containing innumerable neurons work together to maintain voluntary and involuntary mechanisms of the body including intelligence. The source has been far from located. And hence to deduce that death leads to ‘eternal darkness’ is as ridiculous as asserting that the computer is destroyed when one breaks the monitor.
Hawking says that “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.” The point however is that there is no conclusive evidence to believe that brain alone is life and brain failing implies ALL components failing. All we know is that brain is like a hard disk and body is like mouse+keyboard+monitor etc. Without these in place, processor cannot show its power. But only a fool shall throw away the latest Intel processor costing a couple of thousand dollars because his cheap Chinese hard disk crashed or the Made in Taiwan monitor failed!
Seat of consciousness or intelligence is like a processor of computer. Until you plug your Intel i7 in the motherboard and set up the accessories, it looks like a piece of trash. The moment you plugin, you realize that this i7 can accomplish much more than what your hand made abacus can.
Given that there so much of order in otherwise random world, and that events that should have zero probability are happening in ample all around us, the sensible mind deduces that there is a planning and purpose behind it all. Further there is no reason to conclude that seat of consciousness is permanently destroyed with death of the body, when the skeptics don’t even know the seat of consciousness. Hence a wise man concludes that the force of life and hope for future cannot suddenly face a discontinuous abrupt breakdown. And the processor of consciousness would find more opportunities to plugin into a different set of accessories to continue the journey ahead.
8. Scientists cannot also explain what causes origin of consciousness. And further, what makes my consciousness different from your consciousness. How so much close I am to anything physically, my consciousness is unique to myself. Yes, we can admit that some big bang happened, and some atomic reactions happened, and then some chemical reactions happened blah blah and suddenly we have so many humans and animals and birds and insects around us. We also admit that the process led to creation of intelligent machines. But from where did so many observers emerge who are witnessing all these phenomena and thinking about it? In a purely physical model of world, there is every justification of planets being created and even biological systems being created there. But there is no explanation of creation of unique consciousness and observers and action-takers. I understand that my body started as a fertilized egg in womb of my mother and then further reactions led me to having a brain and nervous system and various organs. But from where did this feeling of I came? If I am merely some cell or group of cells, then first provide me my location and then conclude that I can be destroyed.
And also explain me why this group of cells have feeling of I. And how can you conclude that I am as gross as a cell or an atom and not anything subtler? Since I first had sense of consciousness, my body has changed drastically. Established phenomena of observed science assert that virtually each atom of my body may have been exchanged with world or shifted locations. But I remain the same. That means there is something constant beyond all these cells and atoms that does not change. And when it is beyond all these atoms and particles, it is beyond being captured by crude instruments of scientific laboratories, and yet is the most established fact of life, how can someone claim ‘scientifically’ that I shall be destroyed when the body dies? What happens so specially in death that would force this source to die? Thus, to assert that I shall die when this physical body is destroyed is more ridiculous than asserting that Dak Bungalow of Jhumritalaiya in Bihar has ghosts living because some voices are heard from there on New Moon nights!
Let the scientists first pinpoint the seat of consciousness, explain its properties and then conclude whether it dies or continues to live. To deny it in this premature state of sketchy knowledge obtained through crude instruments and slightly less crude mathematical formulations would only be superstitions.
9. If it all be a blinded reaction, even we are chemical reactions. So killing, rape, fraud etc are also nothing more than exchange of some acids and alkalis in a chemistry lab. And whatever a Hawking or Dawkins is thinking or representing is nothing but an evolved chemical reaction. I can claim that actually apart from me there is no other observer. A Hawking or a Dawkins is merely a virus infected robot having no consciousness. And thus there is no reason why a mechanical/chemical object should be taken seriously.
The very fact that we debate proves that we value consciousness as something beyond blind reaction. Or else, all arguments, all logic, all counter logic, all facts, all evidences eventually turn meaningless. Because there is no way for me to ascertain whether you are a robot or actually a conscious observer. Then there is no way to ascertain that you indeed can process information in same manner as I can. Further, after some time the robot called you shall cease to exist and I shall cease to exist. And similarly all science, all discovery, all knowledge, all inventions, all ideologies would all come to blankness. So even the notion of right or wrong makes no sense in a world without observers who are separate from rest of the chemicals. In other words, unless there is an experimenter in a chemical lab, mixing of acid, alkali and salts would only be random catastrophe. And to say that Sulphuric Acid mixed Nitric Acid with Sodium Nirate would only be bedtime stories for children. Much more fairy tales than afterlife! But wait… even children and fairy tales are no different from acids and salts in the lab!
In short, the very notion of true, false, logic, flaw etc become totally meaningless if everything is a temporary chemical reaction eventually.
10. In a way Hawking is not wrong. He hails from a Christian society and hence the concept of God as in Semitic cults is deeply entrenched in him. Considering his current age, situation and lack of knowledge of the concept of God in philosophically more refined concept of God and Universe, it is perhaps too late for him to assimilate these concepts.
The Biblical concept of God is not wrong. Its perfect and flawless for a certain level of intellect. For example, if one has to explain to a child who created the world, it is perhaps simpler to simply state that God made it. And then when the child asks where is God, it is more relieving to say that He is on top of sky than explain why he cannot see Him. And when the child asks pointing to sky, where is God in sky, it is simplest to answer that He is above the 4th or 7th sky and hence we cannot see Him. When someone asks what happens after death, easiest answer to incentivize him to good actions is that there is a Paradise in some location and God will send us there if we do good deeds.
This is the concept of God and afterlife as deeply entrenched in the western psyches.
However as one progresses in spiritual intelligence, more explaining models of God and afterlife are needed that explain the realities of this life also better. Vedas – the oldest texts of humankind – contain plethora of explanations on such a model that is much more subtle than the Semitic view and more explaining that the Hawking/Dawkins model of blinded alley. It is also the most motivating and inspiring model. It also embeds the scope for further refinement with evolution of intellect and forms the mother of all other grosser models of world.
Here are the salient points:
- To claim that world got created without a creator is foolish as discussed above. In fact, it seems to be the most improbable theory by admission of their own proponents. If foolishness be a function of belief in most improbable, then Mr Hawking and Mr Dawkins can themselves conclude who are the greatest fools in this specific issue.
However to consider that the creator is a personal God is equally foolish. The creator is sum-total of what atheists would like to call Laws of Nature. In fact He is the source behind all these eternal Laws. As Newton once pointed out, we only measure the accuracy with which the God manages the laws through our mathematical equations and not the cause of law. For example, we can accurately measure how 2 particles, howsomuch far from each other, attract each other. But what makes this force of gravity of electricity work is beyond us. We create models to define terms like waves, energy, fields, radiations only to explain the phenomena using metaphors. But cause is unknown. Vedic God is the cause. He operates as per these eternal laws – a few of which can be modeled as per crude frameworks of mathematics – continuously and without change.
Thus He is completely impersonal, does not grant favors, does not punish, does not forgive and does not meddle with personal lives. Einstein came very close to defining such a God but was plagues by lack of resources beyond maths and physics that are necessary to explain it further.
This God is same always – in past, present and future. And the laws are such that they are intended for benefit of the seats of consciousness – the souls. The laws are such that depending on whether we enhance our wisdom or reduce it through thoughts, words and actions, we face situations that result in our happiness and sorrow. And happiness and sorrow are modeled in such a manner that they take us away from ignorance and towards wisdom.
- The seats of consciousness – the souls – are eternal like God. Since the seat is subtler than all physical entities, there is nothing in world that can destroy it. Because to destroy, you need something that is comparable to the object in subtlety . If something is more subtle than the inter-atomic space, what could cause its destruction? Its effects are manifest but scientists are unable to measure it because crude laboratory tools are too gross to measure it. The only way to gauge it is through mind because mind is subtlest of physical entities under our control. Most scientists are inept in handling such a subtle tool and hence fail to gauge it.
Note that eventually everything is gauged through mind. Whatever instruments we use to see, calculate or observe any physical or not-so-physical entity is filtered through sense-organs and finally processed by mind. We need all this installation of crude gadgets for same reason why very heavy installations are required to immune very sensitive instruments in labs from minutest of fluctuations. To be able to pull a thread through a needle-hole while riding a bus on bumpy roads of village is not everyone’s task. Only an expert can control his muscles to resist all fluctuations and achieve the feat. Similarly, to gauge the self through mind demands complete mastery over muscles of mind that is not for everybody in mundane life where we are addicted to some sensory input or fantasies to titillate us every moment.
However, circumstantial evidences to conclude existence of a Self beyond physical body are sufficiently more plausible than denial of the Self.
- God is not sitting over some 4th or 7th sky. He is everywhere. Another metaphor could be that we are within God. There is no space that is missed by God’s presence. We cannot measure or gauge Him directly because our instruments are crude. Again, mind is the subtlest instrument available to us and we can use it to assess in much better. However circumstantial evidence implicit in the most improbable event of world – creation and maintenance of creation – coming true is sufficient to refute denial of God as more fantastic than the theory of Olympics being a random event!
An approximate metaphor would be that of dark matter. Scientists agree that given all their definitions and models and frameworks they built to explain the world, there has to be dark matter, spread evenly across. This should be much more than the white matter. But the dark matter remains dark till today. It is around us but we cannot see it. I do not mean that God is dark matter. In fact God is the brightest! But all I imply is that God is also similarly present everywhere if we were to be in a position that we can introspect- which we are already doing!
Dark matter fiasco happened because physics started with certain definitions. Then based on these definitions, certain mathematical models were created. They seemed to explain a lot but fail beyond a point. Now for these equations to make sense dark matter has to exist. But the flaw could be right from the very definitions. Another flaw is the assumption that current mathematics..or mathematics in itself can explain everything!
The Vedic definitions of matter, God and soul are different from popular western perceptions, by the way.
- Since God is everywhere, the theory of Paradise being in some specific place in universe is also baseless. In fact after-life has nothing to do with Paradise or Hell. Paradise or Hell are metaphors to explain to babies. The Vedic view is that there is no specific Paradise or Hell. Instead there is an infallible Law of Actions aka Karma. As per this law, whatever actions we conduct lead to happiness or sorrow depending upon whether they were driven towards wisdom or dumbness. The acquisition of happiness as a result is Paradise and acquisition of sorrow is a Hell. So Paradise and Hell exist right with us every moment. So if Hawking is refuting the geographical Paradise and Hell, he is bang right.
- The afterlife of Vedas mean that the Law of Karma do not cease simply because physical body died. Just as a person does not die by changing clothes or a processor does not destroy because the monitor of computer is broken down, similarly soul is unaffected by destruction of body. The soul, governed by eternal laws of nature controlled by omnipresent omniscient God, takes a new birth that best fits his cumulative wisdom-dumbness combination. The fit decides his species, family, health, destiny etc. Then the future destiny continues to be modified as per the willful acts of the soul. So future destiny at every moment is dependent on the sum total of all deeds conducted till that very moment. Deeds don’t mean physical actions but the intent inspiring these actions. And journey continues.
- When ignorance/ dumbness is destroyed beyond a threshold, the soul does not need to take any future births and is united with supreme bliss of God. He does not transport into a different location but enjoys bliss everywhere.
- When wisdom is destroyed beyond a threshold, soul takes birth as non-human species where the free-will is severely restricted and soul spends time to get rid of dumbness like patients spend time in mental hospitals.
- This earth is not unique. Depending upon the best fit for deeds of a soul, it may be teleported to any of the earths in any specific circumstance.
- Creation and Destruction happen in continuous cycles. The process is beginningless and never-ending.
- Thus the three eternal entities are always present – God, Soul and Nature. During creation, they separate out. During destruction, Nature and Soul directly come under God’s supervision and lose their expressed manifestation. But then again in next cycle, separation happens.
These points are not only the most logical ways to explain observed phenomena of the world, but also most inspiring and purposeful. Further, whether one denies them or agrees to them, they cannot help abiding by these principles. The very fact that Hawkings and Dawkins feel an irresistible urge to promote what is truth as per their best intellects implies that they have the natural urge to seek wisdom and eradicate dumbness. In lines of Vedic wisdom, they also feel the urge to propagate to the world, even though they believe that its all short-term chemical reactions eventually!
Hawking admitted that “I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first.” Thus the chemical reaction that refutes afterlife itself looks forward to next continuous moment unhindered by prospects of a death in near future! Despite being a rational scientist who knows that he will eventually die and that whatever he does or does not do does not make any difference, he has the urge to do a lot! He subtly admits that the Intel i7 processor is different from the Samsung hard disk and the LG Monitor!
Hawking rejected the notion of life beyond death and emphasised the need to fulfil our potential on Earth by making good use of our lives. In answer to a question on how we should live, he said, simply: “We should seek the greatest value of our action.”
Now is that not grossly unscientific for a person who believes that life beyond death is non-existent to seek greatest ‘value’ of action? Can Hawking reveal which set of equations led him to conclude so. Its only a personal preference inspired by the indomitable urge to do good, do worthwhile even when having the last breath. Because our entire system is programmed to seek bliss through noble actions and resist abrupt ends.
Had death been such an inescapable truth of final ‘THE END’ why does the DNA make us so scared of death. Why we have a natural aversion to death in all intelligent species. Why does the ‘darkness of Stephen Hawking’ scare us when we are so sure that the sleep never scares us? Our entire mechanism, structure, system at individual or societal level is built on denial of death. How can our DNA, as per evolution, be so contrary to the most observed behavior of the world?
They will loosely say that this happens to preserve the species. But why the hell should a chemical preserve any species and what is its incentive for doing so? And are there any valid proofs to justify so or is it yet another blank theory?
Yoga Darshan attributes this repulsion to death to the fact that the soul has faced death so many times leading to detachment from its loved ones and loved entities that this is the strongest Sanskaar (mental tendency) of any intelligent soul.
Now someone may say that even this theory of life after death is fantastic and unbelievable. Why should this be believed and not what Hawking or Dawkins assert? Here are some pointers:
- At least this theory is billion times more probabilistic than random blind alley theory of Hawking/ Dawkins. Rather, the probability of our existing probability not being random is near to 1.
- This explains many more observations than any other theory in more probable manner (Probability nearing 1).
- This is much more intuitive and as per our innate tendencies. If evolution were to be true through natural selection, this is what nature would want us to believe rather than the dead computer hoax. And since nature has no incentive to be false, whatever is true has to be eventually intuitive as per our nature.
- There is no reason to believe that death leads to permanent destruction of seat of consciousness. Till someone can pinpoint what exactly is seat of consciousness and how can it be destroyed, to claim its permanent destruction would be an extremely superstitious story.
- If someone says that even if processor of consciousness survives death, probability of it getting fitted in a computer aka body again to start functioning again is extremely remote, then this is also flawed logic. Because, firstly, even if the seat of consciousness does not get a body, it only means that the consciousness – feeling of I – is not manifest in crude world. It does not necessarily outrightly deny this possibility. Remember that processor/ computer was just a metaphor to explain something and not consciousness itself!
Secondly, we do not consider life to be probabilistic. Probability only refers to our inability to comprehend the complexities of the orderliness. Thus in our model of world, the world itself was planned and hence our next birth will also be equally planned. I never witnessed an unplanned world and hence it is highly improbable to witness something with very rare probability in future as well.
Remember, our coin always throws a head! Its your problem if you still consider that it was a random event to have 100,000,000 straight heads in a row without a tail!
- Needless to say, the theory is most inspiring, hope-giving, motivating, purposeful and ensures a sane civilized society that is neither superstitious nor blinded by fear, lust, greed.
- To believe that mathematical modeling and physical observations can explain things that are subtler than these crude tools is ridiculous. When Hawking cannot explain what physical phenomena led him to divorce his caring wife and children at an old age to marry his nurse, how can we expect him to explain even subtler and intriguing concepts merely by number crunching?
Mathematical models and observations can provide a boundary to what is correct and what is wrong. So current advancements in science may say that the location of Paradise as given in Bible is a hoax. Or that Bible cannot be right if it says that sun moves round the earth or that first light was created and then sun and stars were created. But that does not mean that it can refuse the presence of a Supreme who is ensuring that laws of nature work with perfection. So perfectly that we call them Law without even knowing what causes them!
To summarize, the Hawking denial of afterlife is nothing more authoritative than Shahrukh loving puppies. The observations and limitations of modern science give even more weightage to a Supreme Entity as well as afterlife than ever before in history of humankind. This belief which forms the innate nature of all living beings including Stephen himself is the reason why world is a sane place. This is the ultimate source of motivation. And this is the most reasonable theory to believe in unless we do not object to believing that all Olympics so far had been purely random events!
