The Earth Sciences Centre played host last Thursday to a guest lecture by philosopher and mathematician William Hatchett. He outlined his “logical proof for the existence of God” to a jam-packed auditorium. Dr. Hatchett’s proof—that there exists a singular, noncomposite cause of reality—attempts to show logically what all believers have considered self-evident since time immemorial.
Dr. Hatchett’s three-hour lecture on the proof of God distilled into three underlying principles and several conclusions comprising little more than a page of text. The first principle is that of sufficient reason: every phenomenon is either caused or uncaused (but not both). The second principle, that of potency, builds on this, stating that if A causes B, and C is a component of B, then A causes C. Lastly, the principle of limitation states that if C is a component of B, then B cannot cause C.
By these three principles, reality (composed of everything) cannot cause itself, so then something else, i.e. God, must have caused or created reality. This God, said Dr. Hatchett, is singular, unique and universal.
While the average skeptic might find Dr. Hatchett’s proof unconvincing, he is not alone in his quest for scientific proof of evidence of a higher power. Although scientists have traditionally sought rational or material explanations, a few have tried to reconcile the debate between science and religion.
Gerald L. Schroeder, a physicist, attempted to harmonize Genesis and science in his 1990 book Genesis and the Big Bang. Schroeder attempts to show the parallels between the Biblical seven days of creation and the findings of modern cosmology. Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, produced The God Particle in 1993. A documentation of the search for the undiscovered subatomic Higgs particle, Lederman’s book sought to link creation with the principles of atomic physics.
The most recognizable scientist of recent times interested in creation would be Stephen Hawking, who in A Brief History of Time stated that “If we find the answer [a complete theory of the universe] … it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God.”
At the lecture, Dr. Hatchett claimed that Hawking tried to disprove his proof of God, but did not succeed because “he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” Some students who attended the lecture sided with Dr. Hawking, saying they were skeptical of Hatchett’s methods.
“I don’t think the existence of God can be proved empirically—a knowledge of God is fundamentally spiritual,” said Yannick Katirai, a first-year Life Sciences student. “Can you actually empirically test the existence of God?”
Many students in attendance maintained that scientific or logical proof for a divine existence is needed in today’s society. Mahbod Mahmadan, a graduate of the Computer Engineering program, was one of them.
“There is a greater need for science and religion to harmonize,” he said. “Those who base a great deal of faith in science should be given the evidence they require to know that there is a divine exi
