With the proof of reductivism as religion, it is not hard to prove that science is a kind of religion.

If, for each system, there is an element that does not belong to the system yet simultaneously the system cannot exist without that element, then the hope for reductivism is futile. There are many other methods to apply Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, but they all conclude: No system can be understood without outside “help.”

Although Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are accepted and confirmed, most respected scientists, physicists, and evolutionary biologists (though not mathematicians) still believe they will scientifically establish a final cause, which is simultaneously the prime cause.

Why is such inconsistency so consistent?

The Trouble with Gödel

Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and other neo-Darwinists are perhaps the best examples of this “conflict with Gödel” in explaining the origins of life as the result of physics and chemistry. They claim that all that exists, including mind, consciousness, and other apparently non-material phenomena, can be reduced to a material cause. Consciousness emerges from matter in brains, neurons, dendrites, chemistry, and electricity.

Supporters of intelligent design critique Dawkins and others precisely on this point. They argue that there should be an element within the material systems of physics and chemistry that does not belong to that system yet constitutes it. They refer to this as God. Since God is often viewed as a fairy-tale figure from Bollywood-like Gospels (at least in the secularized Western world), such a claim is easily dismissed, as the thesis of this God cannot be falsified and, therefore, according to valid scientific method, cannot be considered true.

But God is not the only “outside-the-system” element that can fill the gap opened by Gödel. There are a few other options, though, all at the cost of reductivism.

Emergent  property production

One way is to create a connection between emergence, which produces non-material phenomena, and a material substrate.  

Emergent property production happens when a complex system generates phenomena that are not inherent to it. Saltiness is an emergent property of salt. In this scenario, it becomes clear that saltiness emerges only when my perception interacts with salt. The sensation on my tongue creates saltiness. In this instance, emergence results from measurement. Sounds are produced by the mouth, tongue, and lungs; however, the meaning of sounds (words) is an emergent property that does not belong to the system that created those sounds.

Could, then, all emergences be understood as products of measurement?

Consciousness arises from brain activity but is not, in itself, part of brain structure. If emergence stems from measurement, interactions of materials, and a measurement tool, what interacts with brains to cause consciousness to emerge? If we claim that our consciousness triggers the emergence of consciousness, we create a tautology. Thus, that is not a valid answer.

This apparent paradox is akin to that of innovation. Innovation arises from the system but goes beyond its limits. Evolution, for instance, represents one emergent property (innovation) after another. Each innovation introduces an element that didn’t exist in the previous system but quickly becomes part of a new system, creating new emergent properties. And we continue to wrestle with the same fundamental question: what is the origin of the first innovation?

Taking Dawkins seriously leads his theory to a dead end. Taking reductivism seriously contradicts reductivism. This conclusion aligns with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. We haven’t solved the question of origin, but at least we know that origins are vastly overrated.

The fascination with origins

The fascination with origins is fascinating. What were our ancestors, human ancestors?

We would like to see a clear picture, a single line, even if it originates in Africa and is linked to monkeys. We accepted this since the mid-1980s when it was proposed by Chris B. Stringer. There is a noticeable change in acceptability since Darwin’s time, when the idea of linking a man to an ape was considered repulsive.

But wait! In the last ten years, genetic studies have revealed that humans engaged in sexual relationships with Neanderthals. Now, that’s off-putting. Can you imagine being intimate with a Neanderthal? It’s much more pleasant to envision the beautiful ancestral Eve, mitochondrial Eve, who emerged in Africa over 1.5 million years ago and from whom there is a nice, direct line to me. But interbreeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans, who were likely even more unappealing since they lived in Siberia… that is really not appealing!

An article by Ann Gibbons in The Science clearly demonstrates that species frequently breed outside their borders. I believe common sense about evolution acknowledges the necessity of interbreeding. No interbreeding means no evolution! Without dirt, there are no clean spots. Without pain, there is no ease. Interbreeding (dirt) is essential to define the purity of certain species. Any kind of deviation (mutation) is beneficial as long as it remains a deviation and does not become mainstream. If it shifts to the mainstream, the system disintegrates (according to the phase transition rule), but without any deviation, the system becomes stagnant.

There is another lesson to learn. Our origins are not defined by a single line. Rather, there are multiple origins that we should understand in the plural. This concept contradicts Dawkins’s and contemporary DNA’s fascination. DNA is not a singular God that conceptualized mitochondrial Eve.

The religion of materialistic reductivism

If Dawkins and Dennett are right to explain evolution as an infinite set of emergent properties, then they are wrong about reductivism and God.

God, specifically, is an emergent property of human evolution. Its memetic presence is everywhere. Its memetic existence is as “necessary” for our survival as language or music. God, in fact, permeates (gives meaning to) science and our lives, despite not being a primary cause of everything.

The idea that God, as a memetic entity, created the universe does not contradict the non-reductivist claim that God, or anything else, cannot be the primary cause in principle. Contrary to what Dawkins has advocated since 2000, it is his own reductivism that offers possibilities for God as the prime mover. Only by stepping outside materialistic reductivism can one liberate oneself from the notion of God as the prime mover and embrace the memetic existence of God.

This also explains why materialism serves as a foundation for communism, making it a religion akin to Christian orthodoxy. Both believe in a prime mover, and the fact that they identify different prime movers does not set them apart from other religions.