The Robot and I

Theology and Science are two completely opposite Realms. One depends on beliefs, fear and trust to explain the Universe and its mysteries. While the other uses principles, methods and proofs to do the same. In fact, they can be viewed as two sides of the same coin. Things which could be explained logically with proofs came under Science. Theology, on the other hand, explains everything else in the Cosmic Universe.

A common man has a healthy respect for both Theology and Science. Though, some may not bow to the thought of God, they do agree that a Higher Power exists which keeps the Universe running. It is inbred and thus, unavoidable. A person however scientific will have some part of his believing in Theology and every priest, however, orthodox would surely have to bow to the principles of Science in daily life.

Theology is a frame of thought which is based upon belief and faith, while Science is based on principles, proofs and methods. Theology makes one humble; Science exudes pride. A Priest is the instrument of Theology and a Robot is a being of Science. And thus, both are the extreme believers of opposite thought flows.

 

When I was a kid in 2010, I was told that by 2020, Science and Theology would come to terms. Both flows of thought would be amalgamated. And there would be no more feuds. But as new scientific inventions and discoveries were made, followers stuck to their established thoughts even more vehemently.

Here I was, in 2033, an Orthodox Priest of the Universal Religion, clinging to the Theological thought flow and hoping that mankind would come back to their senses and embrace Theology as their salvation instead of going around doing petty things that were destroying the Universe and mankind too. Being a popular orator and debater, I had been involved in many debates between Theology and Science and had easily won most of them.

However the day came when I met my match. I had never had to think so much in a debate. Everything he said, I tried to counter and every argument by me was also countered equally logically. It was the hottest debate of the century with the hologram being broadcasted all over the world Live!

My opponent was no human. He was Quentin. The most advanced Robot of the country. It was a debate organized by his makers to serve a dual purpose: to defeat the best Theologian around and so defeating Theology, once and for all; and to test the Robot’s debating capabilities (or so I was led to believe).

 

Quentin might be a very advanced robot. But in the end, he is just a machine working on inference techniques, cybernetics and bionics. So, his understanding of the complex concepts of God and Theology was questionable. And so, I started off by exploring his understanding of these concepts with “What do you understand by Theology?”

 

Quentin answered in his deceptively cultured voice, “Theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths.”

My usual exasperation with robots returned for a second. I said, “That is a definition. Tell me what you understand by it.”

And Quentin’s answer was something quite different from the ones presented by other Robots. He said, “Theology is Science’s attempt to understand religion. It is how Science tries to put God, Religion and Religious Truths into a logical structure so it can be explained in a systematic way without using too many baseless assumptions.”

I was stunned.

“So you believe that Theology is also a Science?”

“I infer from all the definitions I have found that Theology is just one branch of Science that expounds principles based on too many assumptions.”

“Assumptions such as?”

“Such as God created the Universe.”

 

“And God did make the Universe. He made the Universe, the plants, animals and man. And man made you.”

“Contradictorily, we have found evidence of both Big Bang Theory and Evolution Theory.”

“Your Big Bang Theory only tells about the start of the Universe from a small concentrated mass. So, how did that mass come to be? And how long will your Universe continue to expand? Also, your Evolution Theory says that Nature selects the best species to live. Doesn’t that make Nature a higher power?”

“The Big Bang Theory is also complimented by the Big Crunch Theory. According to this theory, after expanding to its limit, the Universe starts re-collapsing in itself ending up as the small dense mass from which the Big Bang occurs. The Big Bang and the Big Crunch Theories create an endless cycle of Bangs and Crunches.”

“This concept is very similar to the Hindu concept of 4 Yugas which occur in an endless cycle. In fact, the four Eons – Hadean Eon, Archean Eon, Proterozoic Eon and Phanerozoic Eons are the scientific counterparts of the Hindu Sat Yuga, Thretha Yuga, Dwapara Yuga and Kali Yuga.”

 

“You can’t say Eons and Yugas are from each other just because of the similarity in the number of partitions. The durations of the Eons are vastly different from that prescribed in the Hindu Vedas for the Yugas. Besides, there is no mention of a Big Bang or a Big Crunch in the Hindu Mythology.”

“Contrarily, the Mythology dictates that at the end of every Yuga there is huge destruction on the Earthly Realm with the destruction at the end of Kali Yuga being very big and fierce. This destruction is also interpreted as the collapse of the Universe and thus, the Sat Yuga is where the creation occurs. In such a perspective your Big Bang and Big Crunch Theories are just the extreme interpretations of these statements by assigning them to the Universe rather than just to the Earth. Even if we do believe that the Theories were true, what would decide when the Big Crunch or the Big Bang should happen?”

It took Quentin about half a second to look up the answers. He said, “The reason for the expansion is the repulsing force emanating from the dense amounts of mass located near each other. As the distance increases and the density decreases, the repulsive forces would weaken and the attractive forces would start getting stronger. When this happens, the Universe starts its Big Crunch, by starting to decrease in size until both the opposite forces balance themselves. But since there is no friction in space, the momentum carries them forward so much so that it ends up as a small ball with huge density. Thus, the opposing forces decide when the Big Bang or Big Crunch will occur.”

That was a pretty tight answer with very few loopholes. Yet, I had my cards to play.

I said, “You give a very comprehensive answer, but you still call them Theories. What gives you the confidence to deliver that answer then?”

“The measurements of the distances between the galaxies clearly show a decrease in the acceleration of the galaxies. This gives us conclusive proofs that we are in the phase where a Big Bang has occurred and we are nearing the phase where a Big Crunch shall start.”

“Your conclusions are based on measurements which are approximate and they do not tell us that a Big Crunch will occur. According to those calculations, the expansion might stop when the balance occurs but we have no proof that the Universe will compress later.”

“You might be right in that instance.”

I smiled.

“Okay. What is the basis of your Science?”

“A large number of various groups of Laws, Principles and Theories discovered and introduced by various scientific geniuses who span over hundreds of years.”

“Exactly! They ‘discovered’ these Laws. They did not create them. These laws were in force since time immemorial. The Scientists only gave substance to them by making it known to the common man. Right?”

“Yes.”

“So, how did these laws come to be?”

“They were in force from the start of time and each law or principle has different reasons behind its enforcement.”

“And haven’t all these laws faced exceptions or contradictions or even amendments one or more times since their framing?”

“Yes, most of them have been amended or completely discarded due to exceptions.”

“So, who updates these rules? How do the exceptions crop up?”

“The exceptions crop up due to random and stray circumstances influencing the normal laws.”

“So how do these ‘stray’ circumstances appear?”

“I have no answer.”

“All this is God’s hand in play. The exceptions are created so as to remind Man that all they take for granted shall change without a moment’s notice and to show that a higher power exists. Also, these principles are enforced by the Lord so man can have a semblance of control. So he can live without too much of randomness.”

“I am not able to process this.”

“That is because you are based upon logical inferences. And logical inferences can not describe or understand a higher power that does not follow the logical inferences.”

And with that Quentin stopped talking. It took the technicians about 2 days to get his system out of the loop. But still, I have a feeling that without a mix of Science and Theology we can’t explain the existence of Universe, Man and everything to the acceptance of everyone.

Note: This discussion is purely fictional.It has been written as a debate between the theologian and the scientist within me. The discussion could have been even more long but you wouldn't have the patience to read it so I have cut it short by letting the priest win. But please be rest assured that I am as much of a scientist as I am a theologian and philosopher. Hope you liked it. Adios!!!