Logic and his alter ego

It takes a lot of a kind of intellectual energy to create a functional product. It takes a lot of another kind of intellectual energy to create a beautiful product. Now talk less of creating a product that is both functional and beautiful in design.
It’s so easy to tell the absence of intelligence…by the absence of order. Science teaches us that disorder is a more natural state than order (via entropy). Meaning that situations, left by themselves, tend towards chaos. Yes it takes a conscious effort to produce order…talk less of functional order…then talk less of functional and beautiful order.

Logic, as defined within the (narrow) limits of our cerebration can’t wholly exist without faith…especially when it comes to our origins. There really is a sweet blur between faith and logic. One always has to believe either that at some point nothing became something, or that a something just always was.

Science tells us that matter is neither created nor destroyed so if nothing became something in the beginning, it only happened once. That is unscientific because things don’t happen only once in science…for the basis of science is observable repetition. If it happened only once, then faith must step in where science cannot.
The other option for science is to believe that matter has always existed…and once again points never meet for science cannot attribute a beginning to the timeline. That is another point where a trust in something beyond our mental limits comes in.
Right from the very beginning, we see that Logic (at least as we know him) couldn’t have been present without Faith…and right now I’m trying to explain my faith using logic!

Let’s assume we limit Faith to only the beginning of matter, and want only Logic to exist from then on…can he explain the beginning of order, function, purpose and beauty? I guess we could easily scratch off beauty since beauty is based on our subjective perception. But dare we scratch off purpose, and make life meaningless? Can Logic, who by himself cannot explain the beginning (and just as helplessly neither the end), be qualified to dismiss purpose? And even if he could, can he do so without removing the word ‘Why?’ from existence? And can he do that without killing his son Science?

Logic has a hard time explaining a beginning and an end; little wonder a lot of people believe in a being known as the Alpha and Omega.

DrAjao Wale (DrAW!)



Popular posts from this blog

"Adunni Dares to Dream" My Illustration Process

Quick One: On Typecasting

The Netflix Effect