I have often been asked why I do not believe in the traditional notion of God—the omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator said to govern the universe. And to answer this, I do not turn to anger or rebellion, but rather to reason. I begin with the familiar assertion: everything must have a cause. If that is so, I must ask—does God, too, have a cause? If not, then not everything requires one. And if some things may exist without cause, why not the universe itself? Why insert a divine being to explain what may be explained more simply without one? The logic seems less concerned with consistency than with comfort. Then comes the idea that natural laws point to a lawgiver. But natural laws are not commandments. They are not prescriptions but descriptions—patterns we have observed in the world, not orders imposed upon it. Gravity does not pull because it has been commanded to do so. It does so because that is what matter does in space and time. To claim these patterns prove a divine legis...
When I speak of silence, the first thing I ask myself is — what do I really mean by it? At first glance, it feels like a simple question. But the more I sit with it, the more layered it becomes. Most people think of silence as the absence of sound. In conversations, it’s the absence of speech. Between two people, silence is often defined by what isn’t said. But to me, silence isn’t just about what isn’t heard — it’s also about what isn’t received, what isn’t registered. So I began to wonder — is silence just the absence of external sound, or is it something else entirely? If I sit in a room by myself, one might say I’m surrounded by silence. But am I? The fire hums faintly in the corner. The clock ticks by steadily. A vehicle passes somewhere outside. Even in solitude, sound exists. So is it silence just because no one is speaking? Then I thought: suppose I’m in a vacuum. There, no air means no sound can travel. It should be perfectly silent. But even in a vacuum, I would still be...