Ascension : Delusion, Faith, Gödel and Stars
Submitted by The Islander (Islander Editors) 10.05.2012 (Article Archived on 24.05.2012)

In responding to Lorna's recent crop of interesting quotations on the theme of faith, science and reason, I thought it might be helpful to draw together two elements - that of faith itself as something inferior to, and opposed to "science"; and the idea of faith as a delusion (a mental illness)…

Delusion, Faith, Gödel and Stars

Warning: Explicit Science Content!

In responding to Lorna's recent crop of interesting quotations on the theme of faith, science and reason, I thought it might be helpful to draw together two elements - that of faith itself as something inferior to, and opposed to "science"; and the idea of faith as a delusion (a mental illness)…

Firstly, I think it is important to understand that science and faith are not at all contradictory. Both are areas of thought and enquiry directed at making sense out of our existence. Simply put, each uses valid but different tools. The idea, however, that the scientist, using the tools of the laboratory, can either prove or disprove the existence of a transcendent creator is patently false. Early in the 20th century the brilliant Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel produced a hypothesis which showed that, in any system of logic, there will always be a set of true statements which, although valid, can never be proved using that system of logic itself. This now universally accepted theorem spelled the death knell to the triumphalist idea that "science" will eventually explain all of reality. Applied to the proof (or disproof) of God, the theorem implies that we will have to get outside the universe in which we live to find the necessary tools! So proof of God is beyond science; and lies in the realm of philosophy.  This does in no way mean that belief in God is unreasonable. Why do I believe in God? I offer one example of the reasonableness of belief in a Creator:

Scientists have long been aware that all of our existence is governed by fundamental "laws of nature". Absolutely everything physical we see and experience is derived from just 12 primary subatomic particles (of which only 4 are relevant) and four forces! Tying these together is a set of laws, each with its own definite value. You may be surprised to know that there are only six such "laws" or constants that we know of. For our universe to have formed after the big bang (13.7 billion years ago), and for organic life to have developed anywhere, each of these values had to be set at a very specific point. For example, "N" has a value of 10³⁶ (one and 36 noughts); "E" is 0.007; "O" is within 1 part and 10¹⁵ parts; and "L" has a value of 10^-120 (unimaginably small, but not zero). Scientists today agree that if any of these values were any different from their current values, not only would there be no life on earth, but there would be no prospect of intelligent life anywhere in the Universe! How accurate is this fine tuning? Well, "E" has to be 0.007, not 0.006 or 0.008. If "N" (a massive number) was even slightly higher or lower, then all stars would be either red dwarfs or blue giants. In either case there would be no carbon or oxygen in the universe…and no life. Look for a moment at "O". What does it mean to be correct in value to within 1:10¹⁵? This, friends, is equivalent to hitting a hole-in-one from a distance equal to 13 times the distance between the Earth and Pluto! For the bakers on the island (accepting that our golf course is not up to these standards!) it will be equivalent to getting the recipe right to within one grain of sugar in 180 000 tons! Dr Milenko would be annoyed at that much sugar…

Remember that all six of the constants of the laws of nature had to be precisely correct for life to have formed in the universe. This really leaves only two possibilities. Either the Universe is the product of a designer (God), or there are, in fact, (Stephen Hawkins view) an infinite number of universes out there, and we are the lucky ones! My point after all this is that both views are equally reasonable (except that Hawkins doesn't explain how they came to be there in the first place) and equally un-provable! Remember our friend Gödel. The universe is rational, accessible and beautiful (in the scientific sense of being filled with beautiful equations). Within it there is a deep order and logic which points, not unreasonably, to a Creator. People of faith accept this view. True scientists are open-minded on the question of God. For most of us it boils down to choosing whether or not we want to believe in God.

Now we come to the question of "Delusion". A delusion may medically be defined as; "rigid adherence to an irrational, and demonstrably false belief which is held in the face of evidence to the contrary". Delusional thinking is the hallmark of major mental illness. Prof. Dawkins very disturbingly implies that believers in God are ill, and are in need of treatment or re-education. The soviets had the same view, and confined believers to mental asylums in the 1950's. The trouble is that belief in a God is not irrational in the scientific context. Scientists routinely produce hypotheses (beliefs) which are "irrational" and "unprovable"; anyone reading quantum theory will agree with this. What, for example, would you say if I told you that an electron, in moving from point A to point B does so by moving to every other point in the universe at the same time? This is the serious stuff of the quantum world! Prof. Dawkins has his diagnosis wrong.

My purpose in this rather long-winded article (which does no justice to the topic) is to suggest that people of faith are not necessarily ignorant, superstitious or deluded. Our search for meaning simply includes the possibility of a loving, personal creator with a mind, will and intellect of his own. We may be mistaken. I absolutely respect the rights of my atheist colleagues to make this assertion. But we are not delusional.

Bill Hardy