Provability by science

Problem

The Gods have two kinds of activities - impersonal (by which they “run” the universe) and personal (by which they grace their devotees). The former can subsumed by the scientific laws of nature, leaving the latter to be questioned by skeptics. Here we consider possible justifications for the latter from a quasi-scientific point of view.

Potential data - Divine experiences

  • siddhi-s.

  • rAmAnujan’s dreams

  • sagely inspiration

  • samAvesha with the deities (This is highly valued and actively sought after by practitioners.)

  • These are not “far” removed from experience - if one admits divine experiences (and testimonies) as valid (if a bit uncertain) data. This encompasses more than the usual Least common denominator/ rationalist community/ nirvisheShAnubhava experience

  • Filters. How to decide which divine experiences are valid? What yardstick to use to separate Ramanuja, Madhva, etc from Moses, Mohammed, Joseph Smith etc?

    • A good filter - concordance with AptavAkya + personal experience, extended by Russell’s teapot type filter. Notably, it should not violate laws of physics (which are sacred to the Gods).

Methodological constraints

  • The physical sciences are based on measurement. How do you measure praNipAta or Atmonnati or rasAnubhava or even the thrill experienced on a mountain or conscious emotions like jealousy?

  • The same effort should lead to same effect in identical environment. Only problem - given the number and type of variables (devotion, surrender and etc.), you cannot ensure perfectly identical inputs so as to expect perfectly identical outputs.

  • Unfortunately, there is no way out but to admit that a limited system, which emphaiszes quantifiability, cannot satisfactorily deal with such facts of life. Either that, or - in a Skinner-like fashion - claim that these don’t really exist or that they are inexplicable/ invalid.

    • It must also be noted that theologians don’t, for the most part, seek validation from physical sciences any more than rasa-theorists do.

  • “tarka” is generally not limited to quantifiable reasoning - qualitative reasong is part of its ambit. That provides a better “experimental” framework. Non-quantitative Philosophical systems are about as “open” to corrections as quantitative science is.

Testable hyphotheses

  • ईश्वरप्रणिधानेनात्मोन्नतिः? (approaching a God of a natural religion, approached in the traditionally recommended manner.)
    • The experimental input and outputs are replicable. Any difference one finds is only in degree, rather than valence, leaving the claim valid.
    • A stronger objection would be a mImAMsaka type - “That just shows the efficacy of the action, rather than that of the deity, which is entirely subsidiary.”
  • Witnessed siddhi-s
    • That’s only applicable to those few people witness them (and so the data is “valid” only for them).