Science Cannot Prove That God Does Not Exist

In several posts, I have pointed out that it is impossible for science to prove that God exists, just as it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. The reason is that the object of scientific inquiry is the material world, and God is not part of that world and is therefore beyond the reach of science.

In a previous post, I criticized a book that attempted to do the former, from the perspective of believers. In this post, I will criticize another book that attempts to do the latter, from the atheist perspective. It is M-E: The God Within, by Joseph R. Abrahamson.

Although the author claims to rely on the principles of logic and the scientific method, he makes significant errors that indicate his lack of in-depth knowledge of these disciplines. The argument he presents as proof that God does not exist, although not explicitly stated in the book, can be deduced from reading it and can be summarized as follows:

Different types of chance

Jacques Monod

When we don’t know why something happens, we usually say that it is due to chance. But this statement is ambiguous, because there are two different types of chance:

• Epistemological chance, where the cause of what’s happening is well-known, but so complex that it remains outside the scope of our knowledge. Almost all games of chance (dice, roulette, lottery jackpot) are examples of this type of chance. Rolling dice conforms to the laws of mechanics, but the conditions are so complex that we cannot predict the result of each roll. This type of chance is what Jacques Monod called operational uncertainty in his book Chance and Necessity (1970):

This term is used... in relation to the game of dice, or roulette, and the calculation of probabilities is used to predict the result of a play. But these purely mechanical and macroscopic games are not "the result of chance" except because of the practical impossibility of controlling the throwing of the dice or the ball with sufficient precision. It is evident that a very high precision launching mechanism is conceivable, and would make it possible to largely eliminate the uncertainty of the result... The same thing happens, as will be easily seen, in... many phenomena where the notion of chance and the calculation of probabilities are applied for purely methodological reasons. (My translation into English).

Determinism or indeterminism?

Modern science has revolutionized our vision of the world. In the eighteenth century, Newton's theory of gravitation could be considered established, and gave rise to a materialistic-deterministic vision of the universe which can be personified in one of the most significant scientists of the time, Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace (1749-1827), whose fields of study covered mathematics, astronomy, chemistry and biology. The success of his studies on the dynamics of the solar system moved him to state that, if we knew the exact initial conditions of the universe, it would be possible to predict all its past and future development. This gave rise to materialistic determinism, so successful in the nineteenth century and still a part of the popular vision of the world, in spite of the three devastating attacks it has suffered during the twentieth century.

Is science opposed to faith?

Charles Darwin

The opposition between science and faith is a nineteenth-century invention. And it was not scientists who invented it, since most of them were believers. Those responsible were atheist philosophers such as Marx, Feuerbach, Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. I count Marx among philosophers, even though he abhorred philosophy, which he considered dead (he said in the Manuscripts), just as Stephen Hawking did a century and a half later, as I commented in this post. I once said that Marx would have been horrified to know that he is studied today in the history of philosophy, for he did not consider himself a philosopher, but an economist.

Literature and Science: Huxley and Heisenberg

Aldous Huxley

In 1963, the year of his death, Aldous Huxley published an essay titled Literature and Science. In it, he raises the existence of two different specialized languages, literary and scientific, different from the vulgar language, each of which is directed towards a specific objective:

• The purpose of literature is to describe, in the best possible way, man's most private experiences, especially those that deal with our feelings. To do this, it creates a specific language, where the ambiguity of words is the fundamental element giving strength. For Huxley, the term literature can be applied to all possible forms of the art of writing: poetry, drama, novel and essay, whose relationship with science he analyzes successively.
• Science, on the contrary, seeks to univocally describe the public (or less private) experiences of man, those that have to do with objective reality. To do this, the scientific language must be as far as possible free of ambiguity. Each term must have a univocal and unambiguous meaning. In the best case (as in physics) scientific language can be reduced to mathematical formulas.

Is there energy in the cosmos?

Georges Lemaître

During the 1950s two cosmological theories entered in competition: the Big Bang, proposed by Georges Lemaître, and the steady state, proposed by Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold. Although the second had to renounce the principle of the conservation of energy, the most sacred of physics, atheist cosmologists preferred it to the Big Bang, as it seemed to them that this theory required to accept God's creation. In the words of the English astronomer Raymond Littleton, in his popularization book The Modern Universe (1956):

A theory such as this [the Big Bang] that puts back creation to a singular instant in the remote past... to some minds it is an objection that it would imply the removal of the question of the origin of the material of the universe from the realm of science... This consideration does not of course mean that the explosion theory is necessarily wrong, but it puts the act of creation, as we might name it, beyond the reach of science.

In other words: Raymond Littleton objects to the Big Bang theory because it could force us to recognize the existence of a creative God. It cannot be said more clearly.

Virtual particles

Werner Heisenberg

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, one of the consequences of quantum mechanics, makes possible the birth of virtual particles in the void, apparently transgressing the principle of energy conservation, the most holy in physics. The reason is that Heisenberg’s principle can be expressed in several ways, one of which relates the uncertainty about the energy to the uncertainty about time:

DE.Dt≥ħ/2

This expression can be interpreted in the sense that a pair of objects, each with energy E, can appear spontaneously in the vacuum, provided that they lasts at most a time Dt<ħ/(2E). These pairs of objects are called virtual particles. One of these particles is always matter, the other antimatter, and their duration, according to this principle, is ridiculously small. A virtual electron, for instance, would last 1.3×10^-21 seconds (just above one sextillionth of a second). The higher the mass (energy) of the virtual particle, the less time it will last. After that time, the two particles will annihilate each other and disappear. Due to their short duration, the existence of virtual particles has not been experimentally verified.

Is it possible for these virtual particles to become real under certain circumstances? Yes it is, and it is believed that there are at least two situations (somewhat drastic, it is true) where this could happen.

The debacle of determinism

Isaac Newton

By the end of the eighteenth century, Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation was well established. As this theory makes it possible to predict very accurately the orbits of the bodies in the solar system, the French astronomer Pierre Simon de Laplace believed he had sufficient reasons to say the following:

An intelligence that knew all the forces that animate nature, as well as the respective situation of the beings that make it... could cover in a single formula the movements of the largest bodies of the universe and those of the lighter atom. Nothing would be uncertain and both the future and the past would be present before his eyes.

This assertion became the dogma of deterministic materialism, a philosophical (not scientific) doctrine asserting that only matter exists (taking the term broadly) and that the whole history of the universe is determined. Therefore there is no human freedom, nor intentionality, nor final causes in nature. There are just efficient causes.

Laplace’s statement can be expressed in more modern terms:

If we knew the position and the momentum of all the particles of the universe at a given instant, we could predict all their past and future development.

Bell’s inequality and causality

Niels Bohr

Quantum Mechanics took shape about ninety years ago. During the twenties, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg formulated the Copenhagen interpretation, which added to the mathematical formulation some additional considerations such as the following:

• Physical systems with properties that can take concrete and opposing values ​​(such as direction of polarization or spin) in certain circumstances can be in a state where those properties do not take a defined value, but keep all the possibilities simultaneously open. For example, the direction of polarization of a photon can be simultaneously north-south and east-west. The spin of a particle can be both up and down.
• The act of measuring one of these properties causes the collapse of the wave function, which means that the result of the measurement can only be one of the possible values. The wave function gives us the probability of obtaining each value.
• It is possible to build a physical system formed by two or more interlaced particles with respect to some property, which means that if one of the particles collapses with a certain value, the other particle has no choice but to collapse with the other.

Is there a universe?

The Spanish Wikipedia defines the universe thus:

The universe is the totality of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, plus the laws and physical constants that govern them. However, this term is also used in slightly different contextual senses and refers to concepts such as cosmos, world or nature. Its study, at the highest scales, is the object of cosmology, a discipline based on astronomy and physics, which describes all the aspects of this universe, together with its phenomena.

Before applying to the universe, the Greek word cosmos meant order and beauty. Notice that this sense is maintained in one of its derivatives, the word cosmetic. The Latin word mundus also has the two meanings: as a noun, it means the world, the totality. As an adjective, clean, neat, elegant. Presumably the first sense was copied from Greece, and to translate the world cosmos they adopted the same word that represented in Latin its other meaning. Finally the word nature (physis in Greek) has phenomenal connotations (rather than to the universe, it refers to what happens in it). From this word come physics (the study of nature) and metaphysics (beyond physics).