I think that faith cannot come only from logic, because to have faith in God means to trust and love God.
I think however that materialism and atheism are incompatible with the scientific view of the universe.
Science has in fact proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies then the presence in man of an unphysical element.
Such element, being unphysical, can be identified as the soul.
My name is Marco Biagini and I am a Ph. D. in Solid State Physics;
I would like to invite you in the site:
http://xoomer.alice.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html
where I analyse in detail the incongruencies of the materialistic conception of the mind, on the basis of our present scientific knowledges about brain and matter.
In the first article entitled “Mind and brain” you can find a general discussion of the mind and brain problem from a scientific point of view.
In the second article entitled “Scientific contraddictions in materialism”
you can find an explanation of the fundamental inconsistencies of the typical arguments used by materialists, such as the concept of emergent, macroscopic or holist property, complexity, information, etc.
Basically, science has proved that the socalled emergent properties are nothing but arbitrary classifications of some successions of elementary physical processes; in other words, they are only abstract concepts used to describe in an approximated way the real processes.
Since consciousness is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any concepts or classifications, the materialist attempts to explain consciousness as an emergent property
are absolutely inconsistent from a logical point of view.
No entities which existence presupposes the existence of consciousness can be considered as the cause of the existence of consciousness.
The problem of the existence of the soul is strictly connected to the one of God's existence, as I explain in the section called “FAQ: answers to visitors' questions”, where you can find the answer to many other typical questions, such as "Are there any scientifically proved miracles?", "Does the existence of the universe imply the existence of God?", "Can science explain God?", "Can science establish which is the true religion?", "Can science explain consciousness in the future?", and many others.
An independent argument to prove directly the existence of God is the following.
Science has proved that the state of the universe is determined by some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics; the universe cannot exist independently from such equations, which determine the events and the properties of such events (including the probability for the event to occur, according to the predictions of quantum mechanics). However we know that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself, but it exists only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind. In fact, a mathematical equation is only an abstract concept, which existence presupposes the existence of a person conceiving such a concept. Therefore, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of a personal God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations .
Someone claims that the present laws of physics cannot be considered exact because we do not have a unique theory unifying general relativity with electroweak and strong interactions. First of all, it must be stressed that it is not necessary at all that such theory must exist; God could have conceived the universe both according to a unified theory and according to some disjoined theories. Anyway, a wellknown property of mathematical equations is the possibility to find approximate equations able to reproduce with great accuracy the results of the exact equation in a given range of values. This is the reason why classical mechanics (which represents the approximation) can replace quantum mechanics (which represents the exact theory) in the study of many macroscopic processes. So, independently from the fact that we choose to consider the present laws of physics as exact or approximate, the systematic accuracy of their predictions proves that the state of the universe is determined by specific mathematical equations. In fact, if natural processes were not determined by any mathematical equations, there would be no reason to expect to be able to predict the natural processes (neither a limited number of them), through some mathematical equations.
Someone objects that the mathematical equations are not the principles ruling the universe, but they are only a representation imagined by man. Someone else claims that math is only the language used to describe the universe. This objections however do not stand since the laws of physics are intrinsecally abstract mathematical concepts, and when we ask them to describe which "natural principles" should really rule the universe and be represented by the equations of physics (for example the Schroedinger or the Dirac equations), they remain speachless. Their incapacity to describe concretely the laws of physics is a direct consequence of the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws of physics. Actually, they use the term "natural principles" (or equivalent expressions) but these are vague and completely indefinite concepts: they are not true concepts, but only empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. Besides, the objective result is that natural phenomena occur according to some specific mathematical equations; this result can be explained without any need to introduce vague and obscure concepts of "natural principles". The most simple and direct explanation is that nature is ruled by some specific mathematical equations. The "natural principles" are then a concept as empty and meaningless as superfluous.
Someone claims that the equations of physics are not the cause of the natural processes, but they are only the result of our analysis of experimental data; in other words, they are only the way we have ordered and summarized, in a mathematical language, the observed processes.
In this case, however, every new experimental data would require a new analysis and a revision of our equations. Such objection is then clearly denied by the predictive capability of the equations of physics.
In a nonmahematically structured universe we should have the following situation:
through the analysis of experimental data we could find a mathematical function or equation to represent such data. However, every new experiment would give us some new data which do not fit our equations, so that we should revise our equations. There is no reason to expect that a new experiment should give data compatible with our equations; in fact,in principle, the possible outcome for our data are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (the probability is calculated as the quotient of the favorable outcomes and the possible outcomes, and since the possible outcomes are infinite, this quotient is zero). We have found however the opposite situation, i.e. the sistematic confirmation of the predictions of the equations of physics.
Consider that the equations of quantum mechanics have been discovered last century, through the analysis of some simple atoms; these equations have then correctly predicted the behavior of billions of other molecules and systems, and no revisions of the equations have been necessary.
Since last century, we have been observing a systematic confirmation of the laws of physics, in our numberless studies on newer and newer systems and materials.
It then correct to say that the probabilty that the universe is not intrinsecally ruled through mathematical equations is zero.
Someone considers the equations of physics as a description of the universe, like a map is a description of a territory. Also this kind of argument fails if we consider the predictive power of the laws of physics: the map in fact cannot predict the changes occuring in a territory, since the map is only a graphic description of the surveys made till now. Tha map can give us no new information beyond those used by the person who made the map itself; on the contrary, the laws of physics can give us new information about experiments which have not been made yet. The map must be revised at every change occurred in the territory, and this is what should happen if the laws of physics were a sort of map of the universe, built upon our experimental data. Every new experiment would change our set of data, and a revision of our equations would become necessary.
Somebody claims that the universe is ruled by chance, because of the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics.
This is clearly false. In fact for every experiment, infinite possible probability distributions exist, and matter sistematically follows the probability distribution predicted by the equations of physics.
It is not possible to account for the extraordinary agreement between the experimental data and the laws of physics and the predictive power of such laws, without admitting that the state of the universe must necessarily be determined by some specific mathematical equations. The existence of these mathematical equations implies the existence of a personal, conscious and intelligent Creator. Atheism is incompatible with the view of the universe, presented by modern science, since the intrinsic abstract and conceptual nature of the laws ruling the universe, implies the existence of a personal God.
