•
Rating: I admit it: I am an atheist. I cannot conceive the idea of a God as the orchestrator of things and human life; I find it a too hasty explanation for matters that instead deserve attention and depth, such as the universe, existence.
Logician-mathematician Piergiorgio Odifreddi seems to be of the same opinion, the author of this interesting book on the relationship between science and religion.
Often, too often, the issue of “science and religion” is dismissed with stock phrases like “they are two separate things,” “science should not concern itself with religion,” “religion provides the answers that science cannot give,” and so on. Unfortunately, the majority of people do not possess an adequate scientific culture to understand how, in reality, science heavily influences theology. In the past, great thinkers tried to force theological debate into imaginative and often impractical mathematical demonstrations; well, this book shows how modern scientific results have dismantled them one by one.
Among the many theories Odifreddi cites, two are the most interesting: quantum mechanics and Gödel's logical theories. The former has not only cast doubt on the true nature of the matter constituting the universe but also raised the question of the mechanism by which we humans become aware of reality. The universe seems to be profoundly different from how it appears to us, and even the measuring instruments we use as extensions of our senses may be totally inadequate, that is, providing results devoid of meaning. It seems there are intrinsic limits even in the scientific method so far universally accepted. On the other hand, Gödel’s theories have shown that every speculation within a logical system cannot be applied to reality in a consistent manner, meaning every logical system can only function within its own limits. And if this holds true, for instance, for mathematics or logic, imagine for theology.
This means not only that the search for Truth might lead to completely misleading results, but also that it might make no sense a priori to ask what the Truth is. It is like saying that any attempt to rationally explain the existence of God is flawed, thus essentially, that God can only be admitted by being irrational. Theology, therefore, seems to be a conglomerate of assertions entirely self-serving, subtle, self-sufficient dialectical games that cannot reach the reality they claim to have contact with. A practical example: “I believe in God because the Scriptures say so,” and “the Scriptures are the word of God,” common phrases heard billions of times, and no one seems to notice that one inverts hypothesis and thesis of the other in a perfectly self-sufficient vicious circle. But such contradiction seems not to worry anyone, people simply pass over it nonchalantly.
In short: if we want to reason sensibly, we come to the conclusion that it is not possible to prove the existence of God; if instead, we want to lose ourselves in sentimental and poetic discourses, we can very well assume the existence of some God in the universe.
But Odifreddi does not limit himself to dismantling theology with mathematics. He also reasons with the Sacred Scriptures in hand, scrutinizing the most contradictory points. For instance, the episode of the serpent tempting Eve in Eden: God had explicitly declared that the apple was a bad and harmful fruit to eat, but Eve, after tasting it, discovers that it is actually sweet and good. The doctrine depicts Satan as a liar, but in reality, the facts here clearly state that the true liar is God. How has no one noticed such a glaring thing? Curiously, the name “devil” means in Latin “the one who divides,” that is, the dialectician, the logician. Is it a coincidence, this desire to condemn rationality at all costs, making it coincide with the Absolute Evil?
I know many will turn up their noses at such arguments, many will feel offended and will question even science to hold onto their perfectly coherent system of a universe regulated by an invisible God who must never be questioned. Many will get lost in the game that is most popular today: personally accusing the author instead of discussing his ideas, or will engage in the usual discussions about how much good the Church has done in the world (which is not the point of the matter at all), but in doing so, they will demonstrate that they have not understood the meaning of this book.
Final note: the book is not intended for a broad audience, which for me personally is an asset. A foundation of scientific studies is necessary, as well as a certain degree of patience and curiosity, to fully understand the reasoning and its implications.
Loading comments slowly
