USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
This homework is in the Theology field not the History field.
SCMNCE
RELIGIOI\
From Conflict to Conversation
John F. Haught
PAULIST PRESS
New York . Mahwah, N.J.
also by Jolm E Haught
publÍshed by Paulist Press
THE PROMISE OFNATURE.
WHAT IS COD?
WHATIS RELIGION?
Copyright @ 1995 by John F. Haught
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmined in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanicar, incruàing photocopying, rccording or by
any information storage and retrieval system without permissiôn in writing fàm the
h¡blisher.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication Data
Haught. John F.
science and religion : from confricr to conversation / John F. Haught.
P. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8091-3606-6 (alk. paper): 04784 (clorh)
l. Religion and science. 2. Religion and science_Hisrory.
I. Tltle.
8L24.0.2.H385 r99s
291.rt15;4¿20
‘!1
.i’r¡Ut¡sneO by Paulist Press
997 Maca¡thur Boqlevard
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
Printed and bound in the
United Søtes of America
95-32t24
CIP
Contents
Preface ……… I
Introduction …..3
l. Is Religion Opposed to Science? . . . . 9
2. Does Science Rule Out a Personal God? . -…. . .n
3. Does Evolution Rule Out God’s Existence? . . . . . .47
4.IsLifeReducibletoChemistry? …. …..72
S.WastheUniverseCreated? ……100
6. DoWeBelongHere? …..120
7. Why Is There Complexity in Nature? . . . .I4Z
8. DoestheUniverseHaveaPurpose? …..L62
9. Is Religion Responsible for the Ecological Crisis? . . . . . tg3
Conclusion:
To
ward Conversation in Science and Religion …. .. .ZOz
Notes ..204
Index . …….216
5
Was the fJniverse Created?
No teaching is more vital to the God-religions than that of creation.
This doctrine interprets the universe fundamentally as a gift freely
brought into existence by a powerft.rl, loving and personal “Creator.”
The cosmos, in other words, is not self-originating, but the product of a
transcendent goodness. The Hebrew scriptures tell us that “in the begin-
ning” it was God who made the heavens and the earth. And traditional
Ch¡istian and Muslim theism even maintains that God creates the world
ex nihilo, out of nothing. What bearing, then, does modern science have
on the believability of this most fundamental of Western religious teach-
ings? Does science make the doctrine of creation less or more credible?
The British scientist Peter Atkins bluntly answers that modern cos-
mology renders the notion of creation by God completely superfluous.
‘
And althoughAtkins himself seems undisturbed by it, his interpretation
strikes at the heart of what many consider one of the most important
truths in their lives. To religious believers the doctrine of creation is
much more than a story intended to satisfy human curiosity about how
everything began. Its import goes much deeper, for it speaks directly to
a common human concern about whether there are any realistic
grounds for hope in the meaning of our lives and of the universe.
If a transcendent power and beneficence brought the universe into
being, then this Same power and goodness could surely also deliver us
from all evils and lead us to the fulfillment for which we long. A God
capable of bringing this whole universe into existence would have the
power also to bring about salvation for those in despair. A Creator
could even bring the dead back to life. The existence of a Creator
would mean that there is a reason to believe that the entire universe has
tnn
Was the Universe Created? l0l
a deep significance to it, even though we may not know now exactly
what it is.
How momentous a thing it would be, then, if science either gave
fresh support to or placed under new suspicion the credibility of this
central religious teaching. Is it any wonder that some of the liveliest
discussions in science and religion today have to do with the creation of
the universe?
The recently formulated “big bang” theory of cosmic origins seems
to imply, at least at first sight, that the universe had a beginning. And if it
had a beginning would this not perhaps mean that the biblical idea of
divine creation as depicted in Genesis makes scientific sense after all?,
Many scientists, as we shall see, are still uncomfortable with the idea of
a universe that came into existence by an act of divine creation. some of
them, fôr that matte¡ are not convinced that it ever came into existence
at all. Perhaps the universe always was and always wiil be. But today
ãoesn’t the “big bang” theory serirously challenge such a notion?
From antiquity philosophers have often taken it for granted that the
universe is eternal and uncreated. Plato and Aristotle held this opinion,
as did many of the other Greek philosophers. Democritus, long before
Aristotle, taught that the universe was made up of “atoms and the void”
that have existed from eternity. And, at least until very recently, almost
all modern materialists had assumed that matter is unoriginated and
everlasting. Science, however, now seems to have laid to rest the idea
of an eternally existing universe. of course it has not done so without a
struggle, and there are still many unbelievers. For a long time, we
should recall, even Albert Einstein was convinced that the
universe
must have existed forever, and this is one reason for his rejecting the
idea of a personal God. Such a God is simply unnecessary, he thought,
as long as an eternally ordered universe is the matrix and source of all
things. And so it is not su¡prising thar in spite of all the talk today about
the big bang, some scientists still attempt to salvage the notion of a
universe without any beginning. They do this either by way of hypoth-
esizing the existence of an endless series of “worlds,” or by experi-
menting with other fascinating ideas that might somehow help us evade
the conclusion that the universe had to have a beginning. If they can
eliminate any crisp point of cosmic origins they expect thereby to make
the notion of a Creator unnecessary.
Some theologians, as noted below, would respond that even an eter-
nally existing universe (whatever that might mean) does not rule out
the necessity of a creator or originator. But the su¡prising astrophysi-
t02 Science and Religion
cal discoveries of this century have by now led most scientists to doubt
that the universe has,in fact existed forever. The consensus of recent
cosmology is that the universe’s temporal duration, though unimagin-
ably immense, is still finite.
And so we are left with these questions: If the universe has not exist-
ed forever, does its origin require some transcendent cause? And is this
alleged cause equivalent to what theism calls God? Or is it possible that
our finite universe arose spontaneously, without any cause at all?
Suspicion that our universe did indeed have a definite beginning was
first aroused in this century by scientific observations that cosmic
space is expanding. But a spatially expanding cosmos requires a dis-
crete starting point, for if we keep going back into the remote past
along the lines of cosmic expansion we eventually have to arrive at a
tiny point from which the increase in size first began. Observation now
shows that the galaxies, whose immense number was also discovered
only in this century, are moving away from each other and that the
uni-
verse is still evolving.t So a very long time ago the whole of physical
reality must have been squeezed into an unimaginably small and dense
grain of matter. Particle physics now even allows that this compact
speck may originally have been no larger than an atom’s nucleus.
Then fifteen or so billion years ago this incredibly compressed pin-
head of matter began to “explode,” creating space and time in the
process. The resulting fireball is usually called the “big bang,” and it is
generally associated with the beginning of the universe. In thinking
about the big bang, then, we have apparently arrived at the temporal
“edge” of the cosmos. And even though philosophers. scientists and
theologians tell us to be very careful about raising silly questions about
the big bang, it is nevertheless hard to refrain from asking whether any-
thing lies on the other side of it. Is it nothing? Or is it God?
In 1917, while studying Einstein’s newly formulated equations on
general relativity, the Dutch physicist Willem de Sitter concluded that
they implied a changing, expanding cosmos’ If the universe were eter-
nal and static, after all, the various masses would by now have col-
lapsed gravitationally upon one another. So the universe must be con-
stantly changing, and this could mean that it also had a beginning.
Again in 1922, a Russian mathematician by the name of Alexander
Friedmann calculated that general relativity challenges the idea of an
eternally unchanging universe. Both De Sitter and Friedmann wrote to
Einstein about their suspicions, but the most famous scibntist of our
century was not ready to accept a cosmology in which the universe
Was the (Jniverse Created? 103
arose from a singular starting point. Such singularities are not conge-
nial, he thought, to scientific understanding, for science seeks
a universal, inielligible lawfulness. Out of his need for universality
Einstein had always clung to the idea that the cosmos must be eternal
and necessary rather than dynamically changing’ This is why he
pre-
ferred a universe with no birth, one extending back into the eternal
sameness of an indefinite past. And so he responded to de Sitter’s and
Friedmann,s disturbing reports by changing his original, computations,
introducing into them an artificial and, as it turns out, purely fictitious
“cosmological constant.” Some constant repulsive feature inhe¡ent in
the cosmols, he surmised, must keep the stars apart and prevent
the uni-
verse from collaPsing.
EdwinA bit later, however, Einstein met the American astronomer ‘
Hubble who provided him with what seemed to be observational evi-
dence of a dynamic universe. Hubble had been looking at several
galax-
ies through the powerful Mount Wilson telescope and had noticed
that
–
the frequàncies of the light radiating from some of them were measur-
ably .,shifted” toward the red end of the spectrum. This could only
mean that the light waves are longer than normal and that the object
emitting the light must be moving away from the observer. The best
explana:tion foi this “red-shift” phenomenon, he concluded, is that the
gaìaxies are receding from the earth and from each other at enormous
Ipeeds. Experimental science was now confirming the expanding uni-
*rs” preoicted by Einstein’s equations. Einstein was forced to concede
the point, and he later admitted that his introduction of the
“cosmologi-
cal constant” was an enollnous blunder’
And yet, misgivings about the big bang continued even after
Hubble’s disclosures. It was difhcult for many scientists to break away
from their longing for a more stable universe. The new theory was
given a considãrable boost, however, when in 1965 scientists Robert
wil.on and Arno Penzias discovered a low temperature cosmic back-
ground microwave radiation which could best be interpreted as the
;afterglow” of an initial hot big bang. This radiation was the clearest
signaito date that a singular originating cosmic event had occurred
some fifteen billion years ago. It was now getting harder to doubt that
the universe began with something like the big bang’
But doubts still lingered on, and perhaps for good reason’ The big
bang theory of cosmic origins seemed to imply that the universe ema-
natiig from the initial expansion would be smooth and uniform in all
directions. Yet astronomy now makes us realize more clearly than ever
104 Science and Religion
that we live in a very lumpy universe. That is, cosmic matter comes
together in huge clots,in some places while being more thinly scattered
elsewhere. Our cosmos is made up of very unevenly distributed galax-
ies, clusters and super-clusters of galaxies, stars, planets, gases and
other not yet fully understood kinds of matter. Immense empty spaces,
for example, separate some groupings of galaxies, while others are more
intimately connected. If the universe really began with a smooth big
bang, then how could it have gotten so far removed from uniform distri-
bution of matter today? To produce all the irregularity that astronomers
are now aware of, the universe must have possessed the seeds of such
unevenness even at the very earliest stages of its development. But the
big bang theory did not seem to take these features into account.
Up until a couple of years ago some scientists were even prepared to
reject the theory unless it could explain the ragged dispersal of matter.
However, in the spring of 1992 doubts were apparently dispelled. Data
carefully collected from a satellite called the Cosmic Background
Explorer (COBE) appeared to show that as early as 300,000 years after
the big bang, when the universe was still in its infancy, the radiation out
of which later forms of matter evolved had already assumed a distinc-
tively rippled character. The primordial wrinkles were probably the
“seeds” ofthe uneven universe we have today. So the big bang theory
seems safe-at least for now.l
Nevertheless, some scientists persist in their “unbelief.” Though
admittedly without any evidence. they conjecture thar we may live in
an “oscillating universe.” Perhaps over a period of many billions of
years the universe recurrently contracts and expands unceasingly in an
infinitely prolonged series of “big bangs” and “big crunches.” This
provocative hypothesis appeals especially to some scientists who find
the idea of divine creation difficult to swallow.
Other scientists, however, have replied that an infìnite series of worlds
is still a problematic notion in view of the second law of thermodynam-
ics. This remorseless law of physics maintains that the available energy
in the universe is gradually winding down irreversibly, like a clock
whose spring-tension eventually gives out altogether. So even if there
have been many oscillations (big bangs followed by big crunches) the
cosmos nonetheless would be slowly running out of available energy
over the long run. Hence the law of thermodynamic ineversibility
requires that the whole series of hypothetical universes must itself have
had a singular beginning, perhaps many oscillations ago.
So the dispute continues about whether the universe ever had a
Was the Universe Created? 105
clearly definable beginning. some scientists are not sure that the same
laws of thermodynamics operative in our world today would be applic-
able in alternative episodes of an oscillating universe. Science has not
to everyone’s satisfaction definitively ruled out the possibility that the
cosmos is eternal. There is no concrete evidence to support the idea that
there have been an infinite number of “big bangs,” but there is no way
to disprove it either.
In the discussion below, a question arises as to whether it is pure sci-
ence, or rather some very non-scientific “beliefs,” that have led a few
skeptical cosmologists to cling so tenaciously to such ideas as an
oscillating universe and other equally imaginative cosmological theo-
ries when there is no empirical evidence that could confirm or falsify
them. Perhaps one motive for flirting with the extravagant idea of mul-
tiple universes is that it helps to save the idea that the origin of life
could have been a purely random event, and therefore one that required
¡o special divine intervention.a For in the absence of a creator, an infi-
nitely prolonged series or proliferation of “worlds” would give life a
larger window of opportunity to come about by chance alone. After all,
the probability of life’s originating purely by chance in a single uni-
verse might be very small. But if there were an infinite number of big
bangs and big squeezes, then life has an indefinitely wider range of oc-
casions to pop up accidentally during one, or perhaps even several, of
these runs.5
Science today has shown that innumerable physical coincidences
have to come together if life is to be possible at all. But if there were an
infinite number of attempts at universes, sooner or later one of them is
bound to succeed in having those special conditions that give rise to
life. In such a case our own apparently improbable existence would not
be so unexpected after all. In fact. it would be an almost inevitable
eventual outcome of a gigantic cosmic lottery involving an infinite
series of mostly lifeless and mindless worlds.
Nevertheless, until actual evidence of such innumerable worlds
comes forth, it seems more appropriate in our present discussion that we
look at the relationship of the religious doctrine of creation to the world
of current scientific consensus. As it turns out, the cosmos articulated in
terms of the widely accepted big bang theory of cosmic origins is fasci-
nating enough, and firmly enough established, to stir some interesting,
though quite diverse, reactions. Does big bang cosmology provide a suf-
ficiently substantive basis for a scientific certification ofthe theology of
creation? Here are some possible answers.
106 Science and Religion
I. Conflict
At first sight, nothing in modern science would seem to be more sup-
portive of the idea of a Creator God, and therefore of religion’s plausi-
bility, than the big bang theory of cosmic origins. In the Revised
Standard Version, the Bible starts out with the words: “In the begin-
ning, God created the heavens and the earlh.” And now, after many cen-
turies in which philosophers and scientists have assumed that matter is
eternal, it turns out that science itself is finally leaning toward the
notion that the universe is temporally finite. Could we find a more
obvious basis for reuniting theology and science than in the idea that
the universe had a beginning? For how better than through the doctrine
of creation-and the idea of a Creator God-could we explain how the
cosmos came into existence so abruptly out of apparent nothingness?
A great deal of ink has been spilled in attempts to show that big bang
physics has made the theological idea of creation intellectually respect-
able once again. Although fundamentalists reject big bang astrophysics
because it makes the universe too old to fit into the narrow time period
(roughly 10,000 years) allowed by their biblical literalism, some orher
conservative christians like Norman Geisler and Kerby Anderson are
now claiming that “the big bang theory of the origin of the universe has
resurrected the possibility of a creationist view of origins in astron-
omy.”6 The book of Genesis has apparently found conclusive support in
the new cosmology.
As you might have anticipated, however, we scientific skeptics will
need much more than big bang physics to lead us back to religious
faith. For it is not at all self-evident thatjusr because the universe had a
beginning it also had to have a Creator. Quantum physics in fact allows
for the possibility that the universe came inro being out of nothing.The
cosmos may have had a beginning, but it could have burst into exis-
tence spontaneously, without any cause.
The scientific basis for this admittedly counter-intuitive hypothesis
is the following. At one time, according to big bang theory and quan-
tum physics, the universe was about the size of a subatomic particle,
and so we can assume that it behaved the way such particles do. But ac-
cording to quantum theory the appearance of such particles does not
need to have any antecedent determining cause. The so-called ..virtual”
particles of microphysics simply pass in and out of existence-sponta-
neously. V/hy then couldn’t the primitive universe, in its subatomic
Was the (Jniverse Created? 107
dimensions, also have come into existence in the same way, that is’
without any cause whatsoever? Douglas Lackey explains:
…the big bang might t uu” no cause. How then did it happen? One expla-
sñãälst partirtes, tttis oscillation between energy levels may cause the
energy to drop to zero, at which point the particle ceases to exist.
Conversely, the oscillation can raise a particle from zero to some finite ;
level; that is, it brings a particle into existence. Such particles, usually
called virtual particles, are literally coming into existence from a vacu-
um. that is,from nothing….one could explain the Big Bang as a fluctua-
tion in a vacuum, like the fluctuations that bring virtual particles into
existence. But if the fluctuations are spontaneous, then the creation of
the universe from a vacuum is also spontaneous’t
Moreover, the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking recently
gave our skepticism a significant boost by theorizing that, though the
universe is not eternal. it still might not have had a clear temporal
beginning. This is hard for common sense to grasp, but since modern
physics emphasizes the close connection between time and space,
iTawking .ubrniß that it is possible to conceive of time as emerging
only gradually out of space. and so there may well have been no abrupt,
cteárty defined first moment, and therefore no first cause either. He
writes:
The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without bound-
ary…has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the
universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events,
most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to
evolve according to a set of laws and dOes not intervene in the universe
to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe
should have looked like when it started-it would still be up to God to
wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. so long as the uni-
verse hãs a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the uni-
verse is completely self-contained. having no boundary or edge’ it
would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. what place
then for a creator?8
So the new physics does not have to lead to theology after all. Some
of us who are skeptical about religious matters have to admit. however,
that recent developments in astrophysics (unlike those in evolutionary
nation provided by quantum theory depends on the fact that in quantum
physici 1¡e gqgleylevels-olpaftl5 and systems can never be pTgcise.ly
the
108 Science andReligion
biology) do not necessarily conflict with religion. Taken at face value,
they might even seem to support it. Robert Jastrow. for example, reads
“theological implications” out of (or into?) big bang cosmology. A pro-
fessed agnostic, Jastrow nevertheless states in his popular book God
and the Astronomers that the big bang theory appears to support the
biblical doctrine of creation. Many astronomers, he says, would have
preferred that the universe be eternal. Then there would be no need to
posit a Creator who began the whole business. So to scientific skeptics
the big bang theory came as a very unpleasant surprise. Jastrow thinks
that theologians will all be delighted that science has now seemingly
demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, while the agnostic
astronomers will be very agitated:
At this moment [as a result of big bang cosmology] it seems as though
science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason. the
story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance,
he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himselfover the final
rock, he is greeted by a band oftheologians who have been sitting there
for centuries.e
Not all of us, however, are happy with Jastrow’s ironic interpretation
of big bang physics. We might not go so far as to repeat Fred Hoyle’s
caustic comment that big bang cosmology was, after all, the brainchild
of the Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaitre who was also a Roman
Catholic priest. But we note with some disappointment that Arno
Penzias, co-discoverer of the “smoking gun” cosmic background radia-
tion, and an orthodox Jew, stated in a recent inferview in the New York
Times: “The anomaly of the existence of the universe is abhorrent to
physicists, and I can understand why: the universe should not have hap-
pened. But it did.”‘o And we are puzzled that in the spring of 1992,
Professor George Smoot, also a self-styled skeptic who directed the
COBE project. could not resist alluding to what he thought might be
“theological implications” in the new supporting evidence from the
COBE project for the big bang theory.¡l
Most of us skeptics are suspicious of dalliances with theology like
those of Jastrow, Penzias and Smoot. It is simply inappropriate to draw
theological conclusions from science. We shiver whenever we think of
the long-term consequences of any religious sanctioning of scientific
ideas. And although it may seem for the moment that big bang physics is
smoothing over some of the friction between science and religion, we
Was the (Jniverse Created? 109
know that science will continue to change. And if the big bang theory is
eventually discarded as premature or inaccurate, then on what ground
witl those theologians stand who now see it as a vindication of theism?
II. Contrast
we completely agree with our skeptical adversaries that big bang
physics prwides no new ammunition for theology. The temptation to
i.uO tnӌtogical implications directly out of exciting new cosmological
discoveries is powerful, but for the sake of theology’s well-being it
should be resisted at all costs. unfortunately, the conflation of creation
theology with big bang physics has proved to be irresistible even for
some of the most prominent religious officials. For instance’ in’195’1
Pope Pius XII suggèsted to an audience of scientists that the big bang the-
ory no* provides solid suppon for the religious doctrine of creation.
Such an uncritical endorsement-one that embarrassed even Lemaitre-
– fully deserved the sarcastic remark of astronomer George camow that
the papal stamp of approval now demonstrates the theory’s “un-
questionable truth'”r’
our own strategy is to differentiate the theology of creation so
sharply from scientihc cosmology that there will be no opportunity for
the twô to clash. Our intent, as always, is to head off any potential con-
flicts between science and theology. We have so much respect for both
disciplines that we don’t want them to compromise their integrity
through superficial alliances, even if big bang theory seems to have
*on th” Oay in science. We wish to protect for all future generations of
believers the durability of our classic religious teaching about creation”
Consequently, we are not interested in fastening the plausibility of the
u”n”rubl” doctrine of creation to anything so unsteady aS the ephemer-
al ideas of contemPorarY PhYsics.
In other words, we shall not allow ourselves to be seduced by big
bang cosmology, even if the latter has a primafacie affinity with bibli-
cal accounts of the world’s beginnings. Theology and astrophysics are
talking about two entirely different sets of truths, and the plausibility of
the doitrine of creation depends in no way on the scientific vindication
of big bang theory. If we learned tomorrow that the theory is scientifi-
cally mistaken, we would not in the least be disturbed’
The reason for our reserve should be obvious to the reader by now. /t
is simply not the business of science to deal with ultimate questions’
Hence, úig Uung physics can tell us nothing about what “creation” real-
ll0 Science and Religion
ly means in its religious depth. At the same time, it is not the task of
religious accounts ofcreation to give us any details about the physical
origins of the universê either. The stories in Genesis have nothing
whatsoever to teach science about cosmic beginnings. And although
big bang physics may be an interesting and scientifically fruitful way
of depicting the origins of the material universe. this is a far cry from
telling us anything about the real meaning of creation.
What then is the doctrine of creation all abour? Our answer, pur in its
briefest terms, is that creation is not so much about chronological
beginnings as about the world’s ontological dependency on God. Ideas
about the big bang provide us with provocative scientific rheories con-
cerning the birth of the present universe. but the doctrine of creation is
about something much more momentous: why is there anything at all
rather than nothing? Cosmologists look for a first cause, and we do not
object to that; but creation theology is not so much concerned about
temporal beginnings as about awakening us to the complete giftedness
of all things, regardless of how (or even whether) they “began.” Its pur-
pose is to invite us to assume that most fundamentally religious of pos-
tures, namely, gratitude for the very existence of the universe.
Thus, nothing that astrophysics can tell us about the early universe
will make its existence any more remarkable than it already is to a
secure religious faith. Talking about cosmic beginnings does not bring
us any closer to God, for the crucial point is not chronological origins
but the naked existence of the cosmos. Even if science taught us every-
thing there is to k¡ow about cosmic beginnings. we would still not have
a “solution” to the encompassing mystery of the world’s being.
Moreover, it is not theologically essential that the universe even
have had a beginning in time. For, whether it began in time or not, it
would still require a transcendent grounding, religiously speaking, in
order to sustain it in existence. Hawking completely misses this point
in his cavalier suggestion that since the universe may have had no clear
beginning, it therefore had no need for a Creator. The theology of cre-
ation, as no less an authority than Thomas Aquinas insinuated, is not
necessarily dependent on the supposition that the universe had a tem-
poral beginning. Even an eternal universe could be the expression of
the primordial love that we call God. By linking the idea of creation so
closely to temporal beginnings Hawking duplicates the conflationist
superficiality of fundamentalist crearionism and Enlightenmenr physi-
co-theology, both of which try to make science do the job of religion,
and vice versa. We repeat: creation is not about chronological be-
Was the (Jniverse Created? 111
ginningssomuchasitisabouttheworld,sbeinggroundedcontinuous-
ly in the graciousness of God.
Theológian Keith ward clearly summarizes our position on
this
point:
…it is wholly inadequate to think of God having created the universe
at
some remote point of time-say, at the Big Bang-so that now the
uni-
verse goes on existing by its own power’ This popular misconception’
that “ihe creation” is tfté ¡rst moment of the spacetime universe’
and
that the universe continues by its own inherent power’ wholly
miscon-
Strueseveryclassicaltheistictradition.Itisirrelevanttoadoctrineof
creation ex nihilo whether the universe began or not; that the
universe
began was usually accepted because of a particular reading
of Genesis l ‘
Thedoctrineofcreationexnihilosimplymaintainsthatthereis.nothing
otherlhanGodfromwhichtheuniverseismade,andthattheuniverseis
otherthanGodandwhollydependentuponGodforitsexistence”3
– It follows also, therefore, that speculations
from quantum theory
about the spontaneous origins of the universe have no implications
for
the religious notion of creation either. Lackey’s suggestion
that the infi-
nitely Jmall early universe could have erupted randomly out
of the
..nothingness,, of a Vacuum matrix is not at all relevant to the issue of
creation.Thereallyinterestingquestionis:whyaretherebeingsatall’
includingvacuummatrices(whichLackeysuperficiallyanderro-
neously equates with “nothing”)?
Incidentally, another word-trick skeptics sometimes use is
to identi-
fyaspure..nothingness”thehypotheticalinitial..perfectsymmetry”in
*r,i.ú opposite charges of primordial physical enriries originally can-
celed each other out-mathematically and energetically.
Then when this
primordialstateofZerototalenergywas..broken,”thecosmosissaid
to have arisen out of “nothing,” therefore requiring no creator.
It all just
happened spontaneously, without any cause’
Ho*”u”,’inourviewitisinnosensejustifiablelogicallyoronto-
logicallytoidentifyaquantumVacuumortheoriginalsymmetryof
mathematic al ,,zerô,, with a
..nothingness” in any sense remotely
resemblingÏheexnihiloofcreationtheology.Nomatterhowmathe-
marically ithereal or physically subtle the initial cosmic conditions
may seem to have been, metaphysically speaking they
still enjoy some
moãe of being. And it is the sheer being of things, regardless of
how
mathematicalequationsrepresentthem’thatevokesthetruesenseof
religious wonder.
Il2 Science and Religion
In sum. no matter what the specific features of cosmic origins look
like to physics, science.is not equipped to say anything about the deeper
question as to why there is anything at all, or what the ultimate meaning
of the universe might be. These fundamentally religious questions are
not the same as the question of what caused the universe to appear out of
the quantum vacuum or a perfect symmetry. Even if the universe did
emerge “spontaneously” and without any determinable physical
“cause,” the relevant question has to do with the metaphysical fact of the
world’s “being,” not with the interesting sequence of physical events
that might or might not have triggered it. Tracing events back either to a
first efficient cause, to a vacuum matrix, or to a spontaneously broken
symmetry may be scientifically interesting, but it is by no means the
same as asking about the ultimate ground of the world’s being.
Here we should point out also that Robert Jastrow, who regards big
bang theory as a possible victory for the “theologians,” shares with bib-
lical literalists the questionable assumption that creation has more to do
with beginnings than with ontological dependency. Missing from the
“band of theologians” that Jastrow expects to be waiting on the other
side of big bang mountain are those (including Thomas Aquinas) who
maintain that even an eternally existing universe would not be incom-
patible with its being grounded in a well-spring of divine creativity.
Like many other scientific skeptics Jastrow simply takes for granted
that all theologians are likely to be biblical literalists and that “cre-
ation” is fundamentally about chronological “beginnings.” It is this
confusion that we wish to dispel.
In fact, Jastrow is implicitly approving the very same, though highly
questionable, theological method that conservative religious writers like
Geisler and Anderson employ.” It is that of forging a conflationist con-
federacy between science and religion on the basis of what is currently
considered the best of science. The problem with this kind of alliance, as
we have repeatedly noted, is that it will fall to pieces as soon as the pre-
vailing scientific theory itself proves defective or in need of revision.
We should recall always that good science leaves its theories open to fal-
sification. So any theological method that bases its conclusions directly
on falsifiable scientific consensus, no matter how secure this consensus
may seem to be at present, holds little promise for future relations
between science and religion. Even though big bang theory appears to
have ousted all conceivable cosmological alternatives, there is no guar-
antee that it will hold up indefinitely. A permanently sound method of
relating cosmology to theology has to dig deep beneath big bang theory
Was the (Jniverse Created? 113
and into the perennial truths of metaphysics for more lasting founda-
tions.
Wecandrivehomethispointbylookingbrieflyatwhatinmodern
times has been the fate of “physico-theology.” This is a designation
given by Immanuel Kant to those forms of theology that based them-
selves squarely on physics’ In the early modern period’ for example’
Newton’; ideas fostered physico-theology by making the world-
machine the primary reason for invoking the idea of God as its divine
mechanic. Prominent theologians followed Newton, reasoning that
the-
ism had at last hit upon a solid intellectual foundation in the certainties
of physics. The “book of nature” even seemed to be a more certain
road
to God than the Bible itself’
A bit later, howeve¡ materialist thinkers like Diderot convincingly
argued that physics required nothing other than natural principles
to
“*ptuin
itseli. It could provide its own grounding. Having no further
,.oi. ro play, therefore. theology became an intellectual orphan.
It is no
‘
“*ugg.ìuti,on
to say that theology’s taking physics rather than religious
“*pãIi”n””
as its loundation helped lead eventually to the spread of
iniellectual atheism and to the comparatively low standing the disci-
pline of theology still has in our modern universities. More than once
conflation has proven to be theologically disastrous’15
Today,whilemostacademictheologianshavenouseforphysico-
theology, ironically some scientists are attempting to revive it’ One
“*u*piã
is the physicist Paul Davies, who constructs his ideas about
God iuite direcily out of the discoveries of physics.’ó
Though Davies
has litìle use for religious ideas of God, he thinks good science leads
us
to the notion of a ðreating and designing deity’ A more recent’ and
muchmorebizarre,”*u*pl”ofphysico-theologyisthatprovidedby
the respecred Tulane physicist Frank Tipler. In his latest book Î/ze
physici of Immortaliry he argues with utter seriousness that theology is
now a branch of physics. Religion’s promises about eternal survival
of
death,heclaims,.unno*besubstantiatedmuchmorecompellinglyby
physicsthanbytheologyalone.Scienceitselfcannowgiveusmathe-
máticat certainty that we will all be raised from the dead to live forever’
And not only that: it can also lead us to absolute certainty about the
existenceofGod.Inthelightofphysicsthereisnomoreneedforreve-
lation and faith.”
Manytheologians’however,wouldrespondtosucheffortsby
emphasizingthatany..God”arrivedatthroughsciencealonewouldbe
only un absiraction, not the God of Moses or Jesus or Muhammad.
To
1t4 Science and Religion
read the God of religion directly out of the theories of physicists will
eventually lead to conflict rather than cooperation between science and
religion. We must seek a more durable theological approach than that
of conflation.
III. Contact
Once again the contrast approach provides a clear alternative to the
unfortunate commingling of religious and scientific ideas that generates
conflict. It rightly resists the strong temptation to identify the big bang
with divine creation. However, its severe compartmentalizing of cos-
mology on the one hand, and the religious teaching about creation on the
other, unnecessarily suppresses the prospect of fruitful dialogue. We
would argue. as usual, that cosmology always has theological implica-
tions. If the latter are not made explicit they nevertheless remain implic-
itly effective in shaping our religious ideas. It seems more honest, there-
fore, to expose them to the light of day. We need to be very cautious in
doing so, of course, since science is always changing (as is religion too
in its own way). But current scientific theory is never completely irrele-
vant to theology. So we should at least look for points of “contact”
between big bang cosmology and creation theology.
We do not want to make the same mistakes theology made in the past
by basing itself directly on physics. Physico-theology, we agree, has
apparently left theology somewhat stranded in the modern intellectual
world. But immunizing theology completely against what is going on in
science is no less fatal to its intellectual integrity. Theology cannot help
but think about God in terms of some cosmology. And today big bang
theory, along with all the other things that relativity and quantum
physics are implying about our world, must be taken into account when
theologians talk about God’s relation to the world. Although we do not
wish to base our creation faith directly on scientific ideas, our reserve
does not mean that big bang cosmology is theologically irrelevant.
One of the immediate consequences of big bang theory for theology
is that at the very least it forces us to take Íhe cosmos into account once
again in our religious thought. It might seem strange that we make an
issue of this obvious point. but the sad fact is that the natural world has
not been a major concern of modern theology. Even though our creed
emphasizes that God is the “Creator of the heavens and the earth,” our
religious life and practice seem lately to have glossed over this teach-
ing.” Theology has been so preoccupied with questions about human
Was the (Jniverse Created? 115
existence that it has often left out the fact of our being linked to a much
larger universe.
This is nor completely surprising, for in modern thought since
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) the universe as an object of theological
and philosophical interest had already faded into the background. As far
as Kant was concerned, the universe existed only as a kind of construct
of the human mind. It was a background notion, not a real, conerete set
of interconnected finite things that could be made the object of formal
study itself. Thus for the last couple of centuries, especially as the result
of fantian influence, the universe was virtually lost to philosophy and
theology, both of which became onesidedly subjective and anthropocen-
tric. Itii especially out of Kantian ideas, we must also note’ that much of
the contrasiers’approach to theology was born and nurtured.
‘
However, as stanley Jaki astutely claims, recent scientific cosmology
surting with Einstein has “restored to the universe that intellectual
.”rp”.tubility which Kant had denied to it.”‘n we can now study the uni-
-veÀe more direcrly, rather than making it only the backdrop of more
specific areas of inquiry. The new cosmology, therefore, is theologically
cànsequential simply by virtue of the fact that it brings the universe to
the fore once again.
The universe implied by Einstein’s theory of general relativity and
big bang cosmology is no longerjust a vague background for our scien-
tiñc oi theological pursuits, but instead-and notwithstanding its
unfathomable enormily-a bounded and limited set of things. It is nei-
ther eternal nor necessary, but radically finite. But if the universe is
finite, this can only mean, as far as we are concerned, that it is contin–
gent. Andif it is contingent, this at least opens up the possibility that we
lay need to go beyond the world itself in order to explain why it does
exist at all. Let us unfold this idea a bit further’
Tosaythatsomethingiscontingentmeansthatthereisnonecessity
tbr its having come into existence at all-or for its being the way it is-
as there *uy huu” been if matter were eternal or infinite’ this particular
universe, even science now seems to impty, need not be here. But since
it is here, the question legitimately arises as fo why it exists if it did not
have to. And once we have asked this question we have already brought
science into close contact with theology’
We can no longer say, as the contrasters do, that big bang cosmology
is theologically unimportant. For the new scientific vision of the cos-
moscompelsustou’kinudramaticallynewwaytheoldestquestionof
all: why does the universe exist anyway? lt is no longer as easy as it
116 Science andReligion
was earlier in modern intellectual history for cosmologists to separate
“how” questions from “why” questions, as the contrasters would prefer
that they do. And once the “why” questions arise, there is no good rea-
son to exclude theology any longer from intimate conversation with
science.
After all, the theology of creation understandably maintains that rhe-
ism provides the most straightforward and uncomplicated answer to the
question: “why does the universe exist at all when there is no necessity
that it do so?” And even though the question as to why the world exists
arises quite independently of big bang cosmology and general relativi-
ty, the fact that today it arises so explicitly our of scientific cosmology
inevitably places the latter in a context where close encounter with the-
ology seems wholly appropriate.
Therefore, although we do not run to embrace the extravagant pro-
posals by Robert Jasrrow and other scientists that big bang cosmology
may have finally bridged rhe worlds of the Bible and science, neirher
do we dismiss their overtures as though they were completely point-
less. For beneath their efforts to connect the worlds of science and reli-
gion we detect strains of an irrepressible sense of awe at the sheer fac-
ticity or “thatness” of the universe. Even Steven Hawking seems to hint
at times at the need for some metaphysical principle that would
“breathe fire” into the abstract mathematics of physics and make this
into an actual, concrete universe.?’) It is not difficult to pick up the theo-
logical concern in some of his writings, even when he p.”s”nts himself
as a skeptic.
wonder at the f’act that the universe exists at all has been given a
powerful boost by current cosmology. And since creation faith is insep-
arable from this same sense of wonder at the mystery of being, theolo-
gians cannot be indifferent to the new scientific developments. while
remaining careful about easy liaisons, we can nonetheless be excited
that science itself is causing a new wave of what paul rillich called
“ontological shock,” the feeling of being awestruck by the sheer exis-
tence of that which need not have come into existence at all.?’
And there are still other interesting consequences of theology’s con-
tact with big bang theory. For example, to a degree that previous theol-
ogy could not have noticed so clearly, the new cosmology presents us
with a world still in the making. put otherwise, the creation of rhe cos-
mos appears far from finished. Especially as a result of its encounter
with evolutionary science, but now also with big bang cosmology, the-
ology today has developed a much deeper sense than ever before that
Was the Universe Created? ll7
creation is far from being a finished product. The universe still surges
toward the engendering of ever more novelty and diversity; and we
humans are caught up in this ongoing creation (though unfortunately
our species also seems intent upon wiping out much of the cosmic
beauty that has preceded us in evolution).
When combined with biological notions of evolution, big bang cos-
mology helps us realize that creation is perpetually new every day. The
idea that “creation” is only an originating moment confined to the
remote past detracts from the full religious meaning of the term. Jesuit
paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin, for example, rejects such a thought
as “unbearable”:
The fact is that creation has never stopped. The creative act is one huge
continual gesture, drawn out over the totality of time. It is still going on;
and incessantly even if imperceptibly. the world is constantly emerging
a little farther above nothingness.2?
This admittedly lyrical declaration sums up the sentiments of a
growing number of religious thinkers who have taken seriously the
idea of cosmic expansion and evolution beginning with the big bang. It
cannot be a matter of indifference to theologians that the universe has
probably not existed forever and that it is therefore still in the process
of becoming something quite other than what it has been. The big bang,
even according to scientists, is not something that is over and done
with. /¡ is still happening. This brings the fact of creation much more
intimately into the immediate present, and it opens up the future before
us in a restorative manner.
The event of divine creation is going on within us, beneath us, behind
us. and ahead of us. We agree with the contrasters that locating God’s
creativity only in the past easily leads straight to deism-and eventually
to atheism. But a theology of “contact” is still excited about a cosmos
that probably began in a singularity, for such an origin helps to dispel the
idea of a static, eternal and necessary universe and replaces it with an
exciting unfinished world-in-process. It does make a difference theolog-
ically if the universe had a beginning, for such a universe seems much
more open to new creation than one that is infinitely old.
Consequently, the idea ofa big bang rules out any “eternal return of
the same.” This is the honifying notion (articulated especially by
Friedrich Nietzsche, 1844-1900) that if matter is eternal and unorigi-
nated, everything must periodically be reconstituted in precisely the
same way, so that there can never be a completely open future.
118 Science and Religion
However, if the universe has a beginning, or at least a finite past, there
is no possibility of eternal recurrence. Nature is open to continually
surprising developments in the indeterminate future. According to big
bang cosmology, with its implied notion of time’s irreversibility, every
occurrence is unrepeated and unrepeatable, and so there is always an
opening for what our faith looks forward to as a “New Creation.” Our
hope in the promise of New Creation clearly meshes much more readi-
ly with a big bang universe than it ever could with the eternal cosmocof
the ancient philosophers or Nietzsche. Many of us would be thoroughly
disappointed, we must admit, if science eventually forced us to aban-
don the idea of a finite and unfinished universe. For that reason we can-
not help but be excited by big bang cosmology.’,
Finally, we cannot avoid the observation that the scientific quest for
beginnings, so abundantly evident in recent cosmology, is at some deep
level of human existence inseparable from the nearly universar religious
search for origins. As much as we might appreciate the contrasters’ dis-
tinctions between creation theology and big bang theory, our indomitably
religious concern for the primordial cannot be completely disentangled
from the scientific quest for cosmic origins. without collapsing one inro
the other, we would suggest that much of the energy motivating science’s
look backward into our ultimate cosmic roots stems from the ineradica-
bly mythic orientation of human consciousness.
The scientific sense of “wonder” about cosmic origins is already
incipiently religious, and we should be honest enough to admit it. Even
though big bang theory is logically and rheologically distinguishable
from the religious quest for the source of our being, the two are existen-
tially inseparable. Though they diverge in rhe order of thought, they
both flow concretely from a common human concern to discover our
roots. We humans are forever haunted by origins.
IV. Confirmation
As you might expect, we shall advance the suggestion here that cre-
ation faith is not only consistent with, but also inherently supportive of,
science. Scientists are not always aware of how significantly the reli-
gious doctrine of creation has assisred historically and logically in the
development of their own discipline. But although we cannot be certain
of it, a truly empirical method of doing science might never even have
come about outside of a cultural and historical context that had been
Was the (Jniverse Created? 119
thoroughly imbued with the idea that the world is a contingent
creation
of God.
To be more specific, the theological notion that the world was creat-
ed_andisthereforeneithernecessarynoreternal-givesaStatureto
empirical science that other ways of looking at the world do not. To
unáerstand this point imagine, as some philosophers have actually
be-
lieved to be the case, that the universe exists eternally and necessarily.
That is, suppose that the state of the natural world /ras to be
just the way it
is and
“ould
not have been different. Such universal necessity would in
turnimplythateveryparticularthingintheuniverseisalsonecessarily
the way ii is an¿ could not have been otherwise. But if this were the kind
of universe we lived in, then empirical science would be essentially
irrel-
evant,foreveryfeaturcoftheuniversecouldintheorybededucedfrorn
necessary first principles. Observation might be of some practical
value
in the short term, buiit would be cognitionally vacuous. For in principle
at least we could logically and deductively reason to the nature of
every
,aspect of the cosmos merely on the basis of an eternal
cosmic inevitabili-
–
,y. Th..” would be no need for empirical method, other than
just to antic-
ipateorconfirmwhatwecouldcometoknowthroughreasonalone.We
would not have to examine the world’s particulars inductively,
the way
science does, since we could arrive at an adequate understanding
of
everything on the basis of its relation to the overall necessity built into
nature. In other words, there would be no need to look at the
world to see
whatitisactuallylike.Sciencewouldbefinallysuperfluous.
creation theology, however, implies that the actually existing
uni-
verse is not n”””rrãry. [t need not have existed at all. and it need not
have turned out exactly the way it has. Since its reality and its nature
originate in the free deóision of the Creator, we cannot come
to know it
thrãugh pure deduction, as Greek philosophy allowed. Creation
faith’
thereflre, implicitly propels us on a journey of discovery to find out
b),,
observation*trat tt ”
wórld is like. Since it expels rigid necessity from
our view of the universe, creation theology opens us up to the
possibil-
ityofbeingsurprisedbytheactualfacts.Itisespeciallyinanin-
tálectual and cultural -ili”u molded by the creation theology of the
God-religions that the empirical imperative of science. the injunction
to attend to what *” u”tuuily experience, is explicitly confirmed.2o
208 Science and Religion
The Cosmic Adventure (New York: Paulist Press, 1984), andThe Promise of
Nature (New York: Paulist Press, 1993).
14. See L. Charles Birch, Nature and God (Philadelphia: Wesrminster
Press, 1965), p. 103.
15. The recent sciences of chaos and complexity, which will be discussed
Iater, also raise serious questions about the exclusive role ofselection in evolu-
tion’s creativity.
16. Gerd Theissen, Bíblical Faith: An Evolutionary Approach. trans. by
John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). A similar proposal is gi/en
by John Bowker in his book The Sense of God (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1978), p. 151.
17. For a development of these ideas see John F. Haught, The Cosmic
Adventure.
18. These ideas are elucidated especially by what is called “process theolo-
gy.” See John B. Cobb, Jr. and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An
Introductory Expos ition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, I 976).
19. See, for example, Ernst Benz, Evolution and Christian Hope (Garden
City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966).
20. See Karl Rahner, 5.J., Hominization,traîs. by WJ. O’Hara (New York:
Herder & Herder, 1965).
4.Is Life Reducible to Chemistry?
l. Francis Crick,The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Searchfor
the Soul (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1994), p. 3.
2. Ibid., p.257.
3. E. F. Schumacher, A Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Harper
Colophon Books, 1978).
4. Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye: The Quest for a New Paradigm (Garden City:
Doubleday Anchor Books, 1983), p. 24.
5. Crick, p. 6.
6. For a purely “materialisf’ account of life see Jacques Monod, Chance
and Necessiry, ffans. by Austryn Vy’ainhouse (New York: Vintage Books,
1972); and, in addition to Crick’s work, for an equally marerialisr auempr to
explain “mind,” see Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained (New York:
Little, Brown, 1991).
7. See Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science (New York: Harper &
Roq 1990), p. 4. Barbour makes a similar distinction between methodological
and metaphysical reductionism.
8. Crick, pp. 8-9.
9. It should be pointed out, however, that these three giants still remained
theists themselves, and Newton curiously continued to dabble in occult sub-
Notes 209
jects to the end ofhis life, fashioning in the process his own peculiar brand of
theology.
10. Monod, p.123.
ll. Francis H. c- crick, of Morecures and Men (Seattre: university of
Washington Press, 1966), p. 10.
12. For a summary of the research see, for example, Jon Frankrin, Molecures
of the Mind: The Brave New science of Molecular psychology (New york:
Atheneum, 1987).
13. Dennett, p. 33.
14. E. o. wilson, sociobiology: The New synthesis (cambridge: Harva¡d
university Press, 1975). For a critical discussion of wilson’s genetic determin-
ism see Robert wright, Three scientists and rheir Gods (New york: Times
Books,1988),pp.113-92.
i
15. See E. o. wilson, on Human Naîure (New york: Bantam Books, 1979),
p.200.
16. Michael Ruse and E. o. wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” in James E.
Huchingson, ed., Religion and the Natural sciences (New york; Harcoun
_BraceJovanovich, 1993), p. 310.
17. Crick, The Asrcnishing Hypothesís,p.257.
I 8. Schumach er, A Guide for the perplexed, p. lg.
19. Following Ernest Gellner’s expression, Huston smith discusses the
“epistemology of control” in his book Beyond the post-Modern Mind (New
York: Crossroad, 1982), pp.62-91.
20. Cited by Schumacher, pp. 5-6.
2l- See Michael Polanyi, personar Knowredge (New york Harper
Torchbooks, 1964), and rhe Tacit Dimension (Garden city: Doubleday Anchor
Books, 1967).
22. see the discussion in Harry prosch, Michael polanyi: A critical
Exposition (Albany: Srare University of New york press, 19g6), pp. 124_34.
23. This analogy is suggesred by polanyi in The Tacit Dimension,pp. 3l-34.
24. See Michael Polanyi, Knowirg and Being, edited by Majorie Grene
(Chicago: Universiry of Chicago press, 1969), pp.225′-39.
25. John Polkinghorne, The Faith of a physicisr (princeton: princeton
University Press, 1994), p. 163.
26. Karl Jaspers refers to this as the “axial age” in The origin and Goal of
History (New Haven: Yale University press, 1953).
5. Was the Universe Created?
l. Peter w. Atkins, creation Revisited (New york: w H. Freeman, 1992).
2. within specific galactic clusters there may be local movement of bodies
towa¡d each othe¡ but overall the galaxies move away from each other as space
expands.
210 Science and Religion
3. Nevertheless, the “standard” big bang theory leaves some important sci-
entific questions unansrvered. These have been addressed by the so-called
“inflationary” cosmology which posits that most of the physicai conditions that
define our present were not yet present in the initial .ondition, of the big bang,
but became fixed only during an accelerated phase transition (inflation) strortty
(billionths of a second) afrer the big bang.
4. on the other hand, such speculation may just as readily be the conse-
quence of purely scientific attempts to interpret the equations of physics, and
we may assume that in most cases there is no ideological influence at work. ‘
5. This is rhe view of John R. Gribbin’s In the Beginning: Afier coBE and
Beþre the Big Bang (Boston: Little, Brown, 1993).
6. Norman J. Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson, in Huchingso n, ed., Rerigion
and the Natural Sciences,p.202.
7. Douglas Lackey, “The Big Bang and the cosmorogical Argument,,’in
Huchingson, ed., p. 194 (emphasis added).
8. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of rime. pp. 140-4r. See arso paul
Davies, The Mind of God: The scientific Basis for a Rational l4zorld (New york:
Simon & Schuster, 1992), p.66.
9. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New york: w.w. Norton and
Co.), p. l16.
10. Quoted in Stanley L. Jaki, (Jniverse and creed (Milwaukee: Marquette
University Press, 1992), p.54.
I l. In his recent book, wrinkles in Time,howeve¡ smoot refers to himself as
a “skeptic” as far as religion is concerned.
12. Timothy Ferns, coming of Age in the Milþ r/ay (New york: Doubleday,
1988),p.274-
13′ Keith ward, “God as a principle of cosmorogical Expranation,” in
Robert Russell, Nancey Murphy and c. J. Isham. editon (Notre ùame: vatican
observatory and university of Notre Dame press, 1993), pp. z4g-4g.The cita-
tion from ward is not intended to imply that he himself endorses the contrast
approach. In fact he seems to fit more comfortably into the..contact” position.
14. See note #6 above.
15. This is the thesis of Michael J. Buckley, At the origins of Atheism (New
Haven: Yale university Press, 1987); this is not ro imply, however, that
Buckley himself subscribes in every respect to the “contrasi’ ápproach, though
it seems at times that he leans in that direction.
16. Paul Davies, God and the New physics (New york Simon & schuster,
1983); and rhe Mind of God: The scientific Basis for a Rational world (New
York Simon & Schusrer, 1992).
17. Frank J. Tiplea The physics of Immortaliry (New york Doubleday,
1994). Since the main purpose of religion was always to satisfy our craving for
eternal life, Tipler asks, why do we need it any longer if physics can now give
us mathematical certainty that we will be raised from the dead to live forever?
Notes 2ll
Using general relativity, quantum cosmology, artificial intelligence, and a
touch of Teilhard de chardin, he assures us that nature requires that intelligent
life will survive forever. To those who reply that the sun will eventually inciner-
ate the earth and its biosphere, Tipler argues that “life” in the form of artificial
intelligence will inevitably have ventured far beyond our galaxy long before
our planet disappears. we will have launched tiny self-replicating forms of
information-processing that will eventually spread intelligent “life” to safer
regions of the universe. In the end, this intelligent life (which ripler consistent-
ly defines in terms of informational capacity) will “take control” of the entire
cosmos.
But suppose we live in a “closed” universe. that is, one destined for a final
gravitational collapse at immense temperatures. won’t the “big crunch” destroy
life completely? Not at all, Tipler replies. chaos theory now allows that the uni-
verse will not collapse at the same rate everywhere. So there will forever be
some variation in temperature among different patches of the cosmos, and this
differential will provide sufficient energy potential for indefinitely prolonged
_information-processing.
Billions of years from now there will finally emerge an..Omega point” com-
prised of such extraordinary calculational competence that it will be able to
bring us all back from the dead. It will do this through an ..emulation,” i.e. a
perfect computational simulation, of the partems that now give us our identity.
Because each of us is ultimately reducible to bits of data, we can realistically
expect that the informationally precocious omega-Point will process us back
from the dead and into etemal life.
How can this happen? Tipler answers that we are now imprinting sets of
retrievable information about ourselves, however faintly, on a “light cone” that
will extend indefinitely into the future of the cosmos. omega-point wilt be able
to read this data and print us out in the flesh once again. Thus. Omega-point, a
notion Tipler adapts from Teilhard. is very much like what theology calls
“God,” for he “exists necessarily,” “loves us,” and seeks to save us from
absolute perishing.
Tipler proclaims all of this while insisting that he is an atheist, a materialist,
and a reductionist. His thoughts about Omega-God follow he says, not from
the flimsy reports of religion, but from pure physics. We don’t need, therefore,
to participate any longer in the superfluous religious acts of prayer and wor-
ship. The existence of “God” and the certainty of eternal life will be brought
home to us clearly enough if we just follow the equations of physics. (This noæ
is adapted from tÌ¡e author’s review of Tipler’s book in America,yol. 172, No. I
(January, 1995),24-25.
18. Jaki, Universe and Creed,p.27.
19.Ibid.
20. Hawking, A Brief History of Tïme, p. 17 4.
212 Science and Religion
21. Paul rillich. systematic Theotogy, Vor. I (chicago: university of
Chicago Press, 195 l), p. I 13.
22.Teilhard de chardìn. The prayer of the (Jniverse,(New york: Harper &
Row. 1968), pp.120-21.
23. See. however, the discussion by c. J. Isham and J. c. porkinghorne,
“The Debate over rhe Block Universe,” in Russell, et al, ed., g)rantum
Cosmology and the Laws of Narure,pp. 135-44
24. This point wilr be considerabry amplified in chapter 7 with its discus-
sion of the new sciences of comprexity and chaos. See Michael roster. ..r[í
christian Doctrine of creation and the Rise of Modern Natural science,,, Mind
(1934),446-68.
6. Do We Belong llere?
l. Some physicists even conjecture (perhaps wildry) that the universe
becomes determinate only when it intersects with observers.
2. See the discussion by Rolston, pp.67_70.
3. This idea is said to have come from the physicist Leon Lederman.
4- For example, Alan Guth’s inflationary cosmologicar hypothesis, which
seems to settle many of the difficulties with srandard big bang iheory, is wide_
ly accepred even though, unlike rerativity theory, there is no úuy to iest it. See
Alan Guth. “Inflationary universe.” Encycropecria of cosmorlgy, edired by
Norriss S. Hetheringron (New yor*: Garrand pubrishing, rnc., tg!¡), pp. 301-
22.
5. see especially John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tiprer, The Anthropic
cosmological Principle (New york: oxford university press, r9g6).
6. Heinz Pagels. Perfect symmetry (New york: Banram Books, 19g6), pp.
377-78.
7. Perhaps. however. the inflationary hypothesis that came out of the early
1980’s eliminates the need to pack so much into the initial cosmic conditions.
Many of the remarkable coincidences that the sAp attributes to initial condi-
tions could have come about by physical necessity during an ..inflationary
epoch” only small fractions of a second after the big bang. See, for example,
George Smoot, Wrinkles in Time (New york: William Morro* & Co., Inc.,
1993), pp. 190-91.
8. John Gribbin. In the Beginning: After coBE antr Beþre the Big Bang
(Boston: Little, Brown. 1993).
9. Smoot. Wrinkles inTime,p. l9l.
10. See the similar point made by Nichoras Lash, ..observation,
Revelation, and the Posterity of Noah,” in physics, phitosophy and rheotogy,
edited by Robert J. Russell, et al (Notre Dame: universiiy of Notre Dame
Press, 1988), p.211.
11. Gribbin, In the Beginning, pp. 249-53.
Notes 2t3
12. This approach is especially characteristic of some forms of ..existential_
ist” theology, particularly those associated with Rudolf Bultmann and his fol_
lowers.
13. Moreover, in the final chapter of this book we shall point out that the
SAP’s connecting our existence so crosely to the physicar cosmos may have
some bearing on the issue of ecology also.
14.The Quickening (Jniverse (New york: St. Martin’s press, l9g7), p. xvii.
15. see Freeman Dyson, Infinite in Ail Directions (New york: Harper &
Row,1988), p.298.
16. For development of this whiteheadian theme see the author’s earlier
book,The Cosmic Adventure (New york: paulisr press, l9g4).
7. Why Is There Complexity in Nature?
l. Two of the best introductions to “chaos theory” are James Gleick,
chaos: The Making of a New science (New york: Viking, l9g7) and stephen
H’ Kellert. In the wake of chaos (chicago: university of chicago press,
‘1993). The new science of “complexity” is summarizld in Roge-r Lewin,
complexity: Life at the Edge of chaos (New york: Macmillan, r9é2) and M.
Mitchell waldrop, complexity: The Emerging science at the Edge of order
and Chaos (New York: Simon & Schusrer, 1992).
2. James- P. crutchfield, J. Doyne Farmer, Norman H. packard and Robert
S. Shaq “chaos,” scientific American (December, 19g6), pp. 3g-49, cited by
Arthur Peacocke, Theology for a scientific Age (cambridge: sasil Blackwell,
1990),p. a2.
3. see the books by waldrop and Lewin for numerous interviews with sci-
entists who are now framing their questions in these interesting ways.
4. Forexamples of this line of thoughr see Lewin, pp. l6Z_6S.
5. See Alfred North whitehead, science and the Modern wortd (New
York: The Free Press, 1961), p.9a.
6. See John T. Houghton, “A Note on chaotic Dynamics,” science and
christian Belief, Vol. l, p. 50. However, John polkinghome has expressed
some doubts about the significance of such quantum effects in the macro world:
Reason and Realiry (SPCII Trinity press Inrernarional, I 99 I ), pp. g9_92.
7. The now classic example of such skepticism is Jacques Monod’s book
Chance and Necessity, cited earlier.
8. These ideas, once again, have been articulated most fully and explicitly
in process theology, but they are quite compatible with othei forms of reli-
gious reflection as well.
9. John Polkinghome, The Faith of a physici.rr (princeton: princeron
University Press, 1994), pp. 25-26, 7 5-g7 .
10′ Stephen Jay Gould, Ever since Darwin (New york: w. w. Norton &
company, 1977), p. 12. Recently, Gould has been acknowledging that natural
