How do we respond to atheists who say that we have no proof for heaven?
From James:
Transcript
Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.
Question from James Prabhu, how do we respond to atheists who say that we have no proof for heaven? Answer, I have answered two of your questions earlier about has science debunked Indra and how do we respond to atheists who say that there is no space in nature for God. So there are certain points which are presumed to be known for this answer. I won't repeat those points in detail, I'll just mention them here.
The first point is that science, especially materialistic science, which is what atheists equate with science in general, sees matter, sees nature and the world from a particular perspective and that perspective focuses on matter alone and there can be things outside that focus but atheists neglect that. So I give the example of a billiards balls where and then in the second answer on no space for God, I talk about causal completeness of physical phenomena also requires an explanation and the explainability of the universe requires explanation. So these two points in mind, let's now look at the question of proof for heaven.
So the first point is that what do we mean by the word proof? Are we expecting that with our naked eyes or with our technologically assisted eyes we will be able to observe heaven? That is not a claim that is made by any religious tradition, certainly not the Vedic religious tradition that you can look up in the sky with a telescope and find heaven. So whenever any religious conception is to be critiqued, often atheists make a caricature of that conception and then destroy that straw man. A straw man argument means that say when one boxer has to fight with another boxer but instead of fighting with the real boxer, this boxer creates a straw man, a replica of that boxer made out of straw and then knocks down, beats down and pounds and defeats this straw man.
So now defeating the straw man does not defeat the actual competitor. So often atheists make a straw man out of religious conceptions and then beat that up and then try to claim how belief in God is illogical. So when Russia sent some cosmonauts into space and then they came back and said that you know we went around in space and we didn't see any God over there, so God doesn't exist.
The answer to them would be if you can't see God on earth, then you can't see, you won't be able to see God in space also. Now that means that God is not to be seen with the naked eyes, he is to be seen with the eyes of knowledge. So he's inferred from what we see in existence.
So the idea of proof, if it just means that we observe with our technologically assisted senses or we send spacecraft into the outer space and then we check whether in outer space we find what is described as heaven in the religious literature, then that is a caricature, that is a straw man of the religious conception. So it's very easy to explain that the heavens and the higher planets, so they and ultimately the spiritual world, they exist in a higher strata of existence and that's why they are invisible to our eyes. The concept of invisible reality should not be rejected as unscientific because science itself has proposed many invisible realities.
The whole concept of dark matter and dark energy and according to physics today, it's not just a small part, it's 96 to 97 part of the creation of the existence according to science is just dark matter and dark energy. So science itself is required to postulate invisible realities. So if in the spiritual traditions invisible realities are proposed and there's nothing wrong in that and science also has proposed, physics especially has proposed many ideas that are not just invisible because of lacking the technological capacity but they are invisible by their very definition.
So for example, the idea of parallel universes which is one interpretation to explain the collapse of the quantum of Schrodinger's equation in quantum physics. Even if one doesn't know about the technicalities of Schrodinger's equation in quantum physics, the idea of parallel universe has very much entered into the popular culture through sci-fi movies and sci-fi literature but within the world of physics, parallel universes are considered to be unverifiable, not just in practice but in principle. So science itself has had to propose many invisible realities.
Now when the spiritual traditions talk about these invisible realities, is that any more, is that any more objectionable claim? Physics may say that, physicists may say that we have our mathematical equations which point to the existence of these parallel worlds, that mathematics may be there to support it but ultimately the equations that are postulated, they are interpreted according to certain conceptions and certain biases which lead to the, which lead to certain postulations. The parallel universe theory is only one interpretation of Schrodinger's equation. Another equation, another more tenable interpretation is the idea that consciousness is an irreducible reality in the universe and that's why the observer plays a critical role in the universe.
To understand what I'm talking about, in case you don't have a background of quantum physics, you can hear the audio on quantum physics in the existence of God which is there in the question-answer session over here in Vedic observer section, sorry, Vedic in science section. So essentially the point which I'm making here is that mathematics itself does not prove anything. Mathematics is used to infer certain things and that those inferences are based on certain assumptions.
So if physicists are allowed the license of imagination to postulate parallel worlds and call that as science, despite having no observational basis or no observational possibility also in future, then there is no rational reason by parity of reasoning to reject the conception of heavens and higher worlds including the spiritual world that is talked about in the religious literature, the Vedic literature particularly. Now specifically the Vedic literature also says that because the universe is like a complex machine, different living beings in this universe are given different levels of access to the universe depending on their goals in the universe. Just like if we have a giant computer in an organization which has all the data of the organization, some people, the clerks might just be given access to the files for entering the data and higher level executives may be given further access and the CEO may have the full access to all the data.
So by similarly in the universe we earthlings are actually intermediate beings and we have been given a certain level of access and beyond the level of access that we have given, there are many other beings who have far higher level of access. So when there is a higher level of access than the data that was invisible at the lower level of access becomes easily visible. Similarly heavens is a higher world, is not considered invisible within the Vedic parlance just by some arbitrary fiat.
There is a reason why it is considered invisible and that reason is that it is because we don't have the qualifications nor are we contributing in a role that entitles us to that level of access. Therefore all that we can say, all that an objective rational person can say is that there may be higher worlds existing but we can't know about them, just the absence of proof is not proof of absence. I'll repeat the absence of proof is not the proof of absence just as a clerk is not able to find any proof of any data apart from what he or she is operating but that doesn't mean there is no further data.
So absence of proof is not proof of absence. It's because we cannot find proof for the existence of heaven that doesn't mean that heaven doesn't exist. Still now how can we know that heaven exists? Then first of all we know it from scriptures and scriptures don't just ask us to believe that based on faith.
Scriptures give their own reasoning and the reasoning is that when you see the universe is functioning in a coherent way, it is natural, it is logical, it is rational to infer that there are governing principles and governing entities who are making sure the universe functions according to a proper pattern and those beings are existing in higher worlds and one of the such higher world in the Vedic understanding is called as heaven. In the Vedic understanding heavens are intermediate on our spiritual journey. We need to go beyond heavens to the spiritual world where God himself resides.
On heaven within the Vedic conception heaven is not the residence of God but the assistance of God and beyond their level of residence of this assistance of God is the assistance of God is the existence of God himself in the spiritual world. So all this can be understood through the scriptures and not just by faith but by understanding the reasoning given within the scriptures and then it can be experientially verified by purification by which we can rise to the higher planets and where confirm their existence firsthand. Thank you.