Perhaps one of the main reasons why people fail to attach them¬selves to religion in the modern age is that the teachings of reli¬gion cannot be observed or experienced in the scientific sense of the word. Belief in God and the afterlife, which is the very crux of religion, appears to most people as particularly hypothetical and far¬fetched: if something cannot be seen, how can it be believed? According to me, this argument was valid when science had reached only the macro world and when ‘only what was observable was the reality’. The atom was once considered to be the smallest unit of the observable material world. But when the atom was split, it was confirmed that it was nothing but a mad dance of energy waves or electrons, which could not be observed. Scientists however continued to believe in the concept of the atom, albeit unobservable. A new logic then came into being. Not only was the direct or observable argument thought to be valid, but inferential arguments or the invisible sources of visible effects were also considered valid. An example of the latter is that X-rays are not visible to the naked eye, but their effect can be seen when we observe the X-ray film. Using the valid inferential argument, if you can believe in the unseen X-rays as you can see their effect, why can you not believe in an unseen God, whose meaningful creation – the Universe you see all around you and the afterlife?
