At the bottom of everything

By Monday 18th August 2008 • Edenderry CE Online

[With thanks to John Lennox]

I find science interesting for lots of reasons. I am no serious student, mine is more of a pub-quiz type knowledge. But I find the more we find that perhaps the more questions we have, and the less sure we are about things that we were pretty sure of before. The extraordinary complexity of the world, universe and bodies we inhabit is so mind-bogglingly huge that it takes  while to get your head around.

Now I’m not sure the astonishment we feel is any kind of proof of a creator GOD as perhaps some do. It’s really just the goldfish thing - “oh look a bridge, how marvellously wonderfully exciting, I could go through it and make friends with it and eat my dinner off it, it’s all so exciting… … … oh look a bridge, how marvellously wonderfully exciting, I could go through it and make friends with it and eat my dinner off it, it’s all so exciting…” etc…

We may be amazed simply because we are, not because it’s actually amazing.

But the extraordinary complexity does perhaps ask some questions of chance and applied mathematics - these being the apparent explanation/arbiters/creators/meaning of our existence. Chaos is not known for producing order all on its own. We have a problem here.

I like the fact that we’re mostly made up of nothing, mostly made up of gaps between particles. We feel awfully solid, but at a molecular level, the space between the particles that make us up is greatly bigger than the particles themselves. If we could find something small enough, with enough manoeuvrability we could make our way through ourselves without hitting anything.

As for the particles themselves, we’re not entirely sure they’re there, being less certain of where they are the closer we look at them. They make for fine explanations of observed reactions, but I can’t say we’re that certain that they are quite what we describe them as.

We’re also pretty unsure about the light itself, whether it behaves as a wave or particle seems to depend on one’s point of view.

Now none of this is proof for a creator. I’m not sure we need to prove one. All we need for now is space to doubt. Something perhaps no longer afforded to us if the pure materialists have their way.

Maths, ever the friend of the lonely theists… [Again my thanks]

Comments