4. Faith In Science - Part 2

In the previous post, we showed how faith, rather than being opposite to science, is actually integral to it.

Authentic science is impervious to politics. Nature will yield her secrets to anyone willing to poke, prod, observe and think. And nobody can tell nature what to do.

So when repeatable experiments come up with results that are enigmatic, paradoxical, or even downright crazy, no matter! Nature doesn’t work for my brain and doesn’t need to conform to my sensibilities. Thus the annals of science are replete with examples of things which are entirely beyond our understanding, simply because experimental results force us to accept their existence.

This does not mean that we should not employ our intellects at all. There is a real and valid role for logical analysis and intellectual comprehension, both in dealing with worldly matters and in our spiritual life. Where people often delude themselves, however, is in believing that with reason they can solve all meaningful questions about nature and issues of lifestyle.

Even logic itself has come to recognize its own limitations. A revolutionary theorem proposed by the famous mathematician Godel essentially states that any system of logic is either incomplete or inconsistent. This means that there is always something beyond our rational mind that we have to come to in order to complete our knowledge of anything.

An example of the necessity of faith comes from IBM think-tank mathematician Joe Halpern, whose research into the synchronization of clocks led him to discover that even the simplest acts of communication require a leap of faith. He explains using the following illustration. Two generals have been planning a surprise two-front attack on their enemy. One general signals the other 'We attack at dawn.' Having sent his signal, is the general confident enough to strike at dawn? No, because he needs confirmation from the second general that his signal was received. Now let's say #2 sends his confirming signal. Are they now ready to roll? No, because #2 does not know that #1 received confirmation.

How many confirmations are actually necessary? Halpern determined that for any number of confirming steps, one can always devise a plausible situation in which one more step is actually necessary. Consequently there is no such thing as complete confirmation of a signal and all communication including everyday conversation is based on the unsubstantiated belief that the other party 'knows what we mean'. But do I know what you mean? I don't know - I just believe that I do.

The most brilliant minds of 30 years ago could not even dream of the wonders of science and technology today. Now, as we try to peer ahead into the new millennium, it's high time we internalized the lessons of last century’s science, including the following: The world is beyond our understanding and what we cannot grasp with reason may be accessible only through faith.

Faith and reason are not trains in collision. They are more like trains in series; one picks up where the other leaves off.