Evidence, Doctrine, Theory and Truth

A recent cover article in Christianity Today issue addressed the re-thinking among some evangelicals about the existence of a historical Adam and Eve.  Christian doctrine has traditionally taught that all human beings are descendants of an original pair formed directly by God by a special creation, or perhaps God taking two hominoids and transforming them into full human beings, from which are descended all humans.  Archeology, now reinforced by genetic studies, instead suggests that all human beings are descendants of a population of at least several thousand individuals that existed at a point between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago.  The article is reasonably fair and respectful, trying to do justice to views of people on different positions on the debate, identify the critical issues involved, and calling for cooperation in working through the tensions and against open clashes among believers that have too often marred such discussions.  I commend the authors for that.

The critical underlying issue is the apparent incompatibility of current scientific theory regarding genetic diversity and the prevalent Christian doctrines regarding original sin and the fall.  In very simplified terms for those not so familiar with each, genetic theory says that in addition to mutations that are a clear benefit or detriment, there are also those that don't make a lot of difference (e.g. blue eyes vs. green eyes) that slowly accumulate in a population over many generations; by measuring how much diversity there is now and making some reasonable assumptions about the rate of accumulation of variation, one can estimate the minimum number of genetically distinct individuals that existed a certain number of years ago.  Original sin says that the first couple sinned in disobeying God, and as a result have passed that sin nature onto all of their descendents, something that took the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ in life and death to break its power.  One couple vs. many clearly forms conflicting claims, and they both can't be right.

As I am neither a theologian nor a geneticist, I do not seek to resolve the conflict here.  Rather, I'd like to discuss the related but not identical concepts of evidence, theory, doctrine and Truth.  I believe productive discussions of controversial topics like this require a healthy understanding of the differences.  First, capital-T Truth is not something any human being or organization has a lock on.  Complete understanding of the universe we live it is simply beyond any one or group of human beings.  In the physical realm, it is simply far too complex for anyone to really know more that a small slice, and there are limits on knowledge, from the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle that says one can't have perfect knowledge of a particle, the speed of light that limits how fast information can travel, to limits on our ability to gather information-my astronomy colleagues tell us that 96% of the mass/energy in the universe is of some form that almost none of the current detection methods can see.  In the spiritual realm we have only the limited amount of revelation that God has chosen to provide, which comes to us in the language of ancient human authors, which can be sometimes ambiguous and cultural dependent.  This is not to say we can't know anything, but neither a scientific theory nor a Christian doctrine are the same thing as Truth.  Both are human constructs that correspond to a greater or lesser extent to the Truth that we can't know completely.  The actually serve similar functions in their respective disciplines, providing us a framework for making since of the myriad of related facts and encapsulating the best understandings for passing on to the next generation.  The theories and doctrines that are widely taught today are the ones that won out over others because they provided a better fit to the evidence.  The type and nature of the evidence they utilize tend to be quite different; science relies heavily on observations and experimental results to establish theories, while doctrines rely more on scriptural interpretation, tradition and individual impressions.  I do not believe that either theories or doctrine are intrinsically more reliable than the other; consulting a physics text on how to treat my wife and the Bible on how to build an airplane are equally foolish. Some theories are far more established than others with much stronger evidence, and the same goes for doctrines.  There is good evidence for them, so they are not to be lightly tossed aside because we don't like them or a few pieces of evidence seems to conflict.  But even the most established theories and doctrines are not the same as the Truth, so we must not conflate the two and be prepared to rethink even the most cherished theory or doctrine if the evidence warrants it.  The goal should not be to prove my theory or doctrine is right, but to better approach the Truth.

The Casey Anthony in all of us

Representation of Casey Anthony's tattoo, "beautiful life" in Italian.

The recent jury verdict brought another chapter to a close in the sad story of Casey and Caylee Anthony. It is sad to see the death of a little girl so early in her life. It is sad for the young woman who seems to have been all too willing to throw away friends, family relations and even her young daughter for a few weeks of pleasure. It also strikes me sad the almost morbid fascination that our media and population have had with this tragic affair, the way it has crowded out more serious news, and even the anger over the verdict expressed by people entirely unconnected with the situation. Maybe it is shock that such things could happen in our society, although unfortunately this type of child neglect is far more common than many would like to admit. Maybe it because mother and daughter are so attractive looking, and many could imagine them being someone we knew. Maybe it is because it quietly made us feel better when we secretly compared ourselves to her, thinking that, while I may be too busy to give my children the attention they really need and might color the facts when filling out taxes or talking to my boss, I’m certainly not like her. Or am I?
Perhaps just as sad is that we don’t have to look very far to find other examples of self-centered people trying to spin the truth to fit their convenience. At the moment not one but two professional sports leagues are engaged in lockouts, involving people whose income far exceeds most Americans who are trying to convince us that they are being impoverished by each other through contractual agreements they themselves agreed to. Perhaps the greatest farce at the moment are the budget “negotiations” that seem to currently consist largely of Republicans and Democrats trying to paint each other as the roadblock to resolving a serious national issue. But of course, we elected them and they are simply pandering to and enabling our selective reading of facts to keep believing that the nation’s financial bind can be resolved without any significant tax increases or modification of entitlement programs. Maybe we are not so different.
Sadly, being loose with the truth when it suits an agenda extends past our politicians and hard-partying young women to even groups we want to think of being more trustworthy. For example, I am troubled by a prominent radio preacher blithely claiming there is not one shred of evidence for evolution—note that is ANY evidence, independent of whether it is enough to convince him or not. I have difficulty understanding such claims as anything but willful ignorance, given not only the mass of scientific work but even a book specifically written by Christians and published by a Christian publisher with an explicit goal of explaining such evidence to the church. I cringed at a cutesy cartoon video produced by a major creationist organization (which now has a successful for-profit arm) that claimed that teaching about evolution was the root cause of abortion, homosexuality, and a host of other social ills, basically conflating “evolution” with “secular humanism” in a way that would make Louis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty proud. On the other hand, I am baffled by atheistic scientists who are so careful in their scientific work yet turn around and make blanket statements about religion being the root of mankind’s ills, blithely lumping Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mother Teresa into the same category as Osama bin Laden. I even had one otherwise respectable colleague claim to me that Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong were religious fanatics, despite the latter two—as atheistic communists—explicitly used state power to repress religious activity. More subtle is the continued promulgation of the idea that science is entirely objective and based solely on facts while religious belief is completely subjective and based only on opinions, so that the latter has no place in public discourse. While there is certainly a difference in degree, science does have a subjective element—witness Einstein’s refusal to accept non-deterministic quantum mechanics because it just seemed wrong to him—and theological discourse is hardly fact-free, for example bringing up the etymology of words in the original text, comparing different passages and appealing to respected authorities. Unfortunately, it is so much easier to paint opposing views with broad brush strokes to dismiss them without trying to really understand a different view point; after all, we might discover that they might be at least partially right, and our most cherished beliefs might need to be re-evaluated in light of new knowledge.
Our tendency to “adjust” fact to fit what we want to be true is a human thing. In the prototypical sin described in the Bible, Adam and Eve (egged on by the serpent) chose to re-interpret what God had told them because they decided for themselves that eating the forbidden fruit was good for them. It is a pattern one sees throughout scripture, whether it is King David trying to cover up his liaison with Bathsheba, Peter denying knowing Christ in response to a woman’s accusation, or the unnamed Corinthians using freedom in Christ as a cover for sexual perversion. I don’t think the root problem of our society are Democrats or Republicans, scientific evolution or public displays of faith, greedy sports figure or owners, biased media or dysfunctional families. It is so much easier to try to play victim and put the blame on someone else, like Casey Anthony tried to, but that just points back to the real problem. Much as we hate to admit it, there is a little bit of her in all of us, spinning facts to match what we want to be true, trying to hide uncomfortable truth even from ourselves. There have been great scientific and technological advances over the last few centuries that have radically changed the material existence of most in our society. Human nature, however, hasn’t really changed, so on this subject I believe that certain ancient collection of writings still offers the best insight into our spiritual problem and its resolution. Call it what you will, but the root is in us, not them, and best we can do on our own is to cover it up. A good life can not be built on lies and what we just want to be true.

Scientific Religion?

The planarian is a simple animal with eye
spots set into shallow pits, that allow it to
distinguish light and dark and some direction.
Image by Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado

Can science study religion? A recent issue of the Economist contained an article about what it described as scientific investigation into religious beliefs. It basically discussed some experiments dealing with religious-related psychology, such as whether a bad thing that happened to someone represented supernatural judgment for previous wrong behavior. I have no problem with such studies; what bothered me the most was how the journalist writing the article (and probably many scientists involved in the project) implied that science had finally turned its sights on religion and was making progress towards developing a scientific explanation. First, it over stated the case—there is a long way from someone considering another's misfortune might be just desserts to providing a rational explanation of one of the most powerful forces in human society. But second, it and a host of similar claims are making a huge, unjustified and invalid assumption.
Religion has been an enigma for those who seek to construct a rational, scientific view of the world and human existence. We no longer need to invoke any sort of supernatural activity to account for the motion of the sun and stars, variety of species and mental illness. Yet the overwhelming majority of people that have ever walked on the face of this planet firmly believe in the existence of something more than what can be seen and touched, that there are gods, or spirits, or unseen forces, that can help or hinder, bring hope or judgment, that we may be able to influence but not control. Even among people who consider themselves not religious, one can find belief in astrology, UFOs, good luck charms, etc. In fact, evidence of religious belief in burial customs (such as inclusion of artifacts for the afterlife) is one of the criteria often used for when hominoids became truly human. But if all there exists is the material world, religious belief doesn’t make a lot of sense.
There are many suggested explanations for this apparent conundrum, most of which fall into a few categories. One common one is that it is a psychological cooping mechanism—"the opiate of the people" was Marx’s quip. Another category focuses on religion’s role in explaining the physical origins world around us; from this view, religion no longer has a purpose. A third, more subtle and a little more respectful, focuses on religion’s role in supporting social order. Specifically, it suggests that religious belief evolved with humans because of the side effects of shaping a cooperative, interdependent social order. This is the basic idea behind the article I am referring to.
While there is some truth in those ideas, they are far from the whole thing. There is a long history of downtrodden and oppressed people turning to religion to find meaning and hope in a harsh world, but has also lead to heroic action and personal sacrifice. African-American Christianity not only ministered hope to slaves and Jim Crow victims, but also a major force in the civil rights movement. Most religions contain stories about how the world came to be, but that is often only a small portion of their teaching, and the focus is not so much on satisfying curiosity as understanding one’s place in the universe. Morality and right living is a major theme of many religions, but there is real variety in how much emphasis is given, and even what those morals are. Consider the stories of the affairs and infighting of the Greek gods, or religions such as Vodou that don’t address morality, at least as it is understood in western thought. What they all do is teach about of the supernatural and how one should relate to it. This, however, is not the deepest flaw in the idea that religion evolved simply due to its social benefits.
The suggestion that any other significant aspect of human beings evolved simply for a side effect would be met with incredibility. No one would seriously suggest that ears evolved merely because of the structures that give us our sense of balance, or that the only real purpose of eyes was to help the body maintain its sleep/wake cycle. Ears and eyes are sensory organs that evolved in response to auditory and visual realities, respectively, because they provide the individual useful information carried by sound and light that could provide an advantage. Maybe, just maybe, religiosity evolved in response to a spiritual reality; information from and requests to real supernatural beings would certainly provide an advantage to an individual. Common features in different religions are encounters with supernatural beings, at least for select individuals. Neuroscientists have discovered regions of our brains connected with religious sensations, just like there are regions connected with hearing and vision. One could legitimately raise the objection that, unlike vision where we all would more or less agree on what is seen, spiritual encounters demonstrate inconsistency in their nature and who experiences them. But remember that eyes have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years, so are pretty well develop organs. In contrast, a human "spiritual sense" is most likely less than hundred thousand years old, so if such an organ exists, it is likely to still be quite primitive, perhaps more akin to the eye spots and eye pits, the most primitive forms of eyes, which only perceive generalized shadows.
Whether or not humans have evolved a "spiritual" organ that is unique among the animal kingdom, the biggest problem with this “scientific” explanation of religion is a serious logical fallacy. Natural science uses methodological naturalism, meaning that it only considers explanations that can be attributed to the physical world. That is fine if one is studying semiconductors or meteorites; those are physical phenomena and so it is preferable that one look for a physical explanation. However, the attempt to explain religion "scientifically" then starts by making a major, unjustified assumption, that religion is best explained strictly as a natural phenomena. It would be legitimate for one to try to make the argument that human psychology is a better explanation for the phenomena called religion than that the existence of a supernatural reality. That would be normal practice in science; proponents of one theory seek to demonstrate that it better matches the phenomena studied than a competing theory. However, simply ignoring or dismissing the most widely held theory (that there exists a supernatural reality) and evidence put forth to support it without any justification just because it clashes with one’s beliefs/dogma (science can explain everything) is not intellectually honest. One might go as far as calling it blind faith; it is not all that different from those who would reject entire scientific disciplines simply because they contradict a particular interpretation of scripture. I don’t have a problem with scientists investigating realms that overlap with faith, but there must be an openness to the possibility that there is more to our world than the physical reality. Natural science is a powerful tool for understanding our world, but it is not the only means, and it has its limits.

The Destruction of Mistruth

My hometown was shocked this past week by the horrendous murder of an expectant mother. Another woman had befriended her, was taking her to a doctor’s appointment, then apparently killed her and cut the child from the mother’s womb, trying to pass off the child as her own when she took it to the hospital. It is difficult to comprehend how someone could reach the point of carrying out such a barbaric act, though one pointer is claims she had been making. She had been (falsely) telling the young mother, neighbors and others that she was pregnant, even buying baby things, and it seems that efforts to maintain her “truth” led to the destruction of another family.

There is a disturbing trend in our society of being cavalier about truth and basing it more on what one’s group thinks than any external reality. At one end, it can be seen in prevalent academic theories that assert that the only “truth” is what the reader or the group decides there is in a text or history. At the other end, there are politicians making claims and crafting legislation based on “facts” generated by talk shows and related circles. Underlying all of this is a great arrogance, dismissing or demonizing those who disagree, where “being right” is more about winning the social battle than really understanding the world we live in. And now this attitude seems to even be creeping into what would seem to be the last defenders of Truth, which should make us all afraid.

As both a scientist and a Christian, I am connected to two groups that continue to claim their respective truths are not human inventions but based on an external reality—the physical world and God, respectively. Yet the clashes between the two groups over issues such as origins are legendary, and I am troubled by how quickly both sides are often to resort to strategies that cheapen Truth. For example one prominent radio preacher (John MacArthur) states that “evolution is not scientific. Evolution is not reasonable.” In other words, he claims greater expertise on what “science” is than thousands of scientists, who apparently suffer from limited reasoning capacity. On the other side, Richard Dawkins has called those who don’t believe in evolution “ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” What bothers me is not the passion—whether or not the world has a creator is an extremely important question. Rather it is how quick many on both sides are to dismiss arguments they disagree with by focusing on the motivation of the others, using double standards for evidence, or simply ignoring them rather than do the hard work of studying the opponent’s arguments to separate the truth from the error.

It is often much easier to employ arguments to undermine the integrity and truth claims of the opponent than to take them seriously and counter them. But the more we undermine the truth of the other, the more we tend to undermine truth itself. Truly seeking the truth requires humility where we are willing to admit we could be wrong about some things and may never know everything. I pray that we be a little less concerned about being right, and more on understanding truth, before we kill Truth and leave ourselves orphans.

Cosmic Coincidences

Image: Representation of a section
of DNA made by Richard Wheeler.

There are many things about the universe we live in that are just right for life as we know it to exist. Not only are there parameters that must have values that lie in a very narrow range, but there are also “coincidences” of seemingly unrelated phenomena that are crucial. One example is why some of the elements critical for life happen to be among the more abundant ones in the universe.

Our bodies, like most organic matter, are composed primarily of four elements: hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. The first, of course, is the simplest and most abundant element in the universe, but the remaining three are fairly special. All three are capable of forming multiple chemical bonds, and all are (unusually) capable of forming multiple bonds with the same partner atom. For example, elemental oxygen, O2 is a gas where two oxygen atoms share two chemical bonds. In contrast sulfur is a solid because, although it is in many ways chemically similar to oxygen and also forms two chemical bonds, it cannot form both of them with the same atom and therefore forms a solid network of atoms. The ability of these elements to form gaseous as well as liquid and solid compounds is critical for life, e.g. for respiration. Similarly, carbon dioxide is a gas because the carbon atom shares two of its four bonds with each oxygen atom, but silicon dioxide (a principle element of many rocks) cannot form double bonds. The unusually flexible atomic bonds of these elements, especially carbon, also allow them to a wide range of complex molecules that form the building blocks of life, such as sugars, proteins and DNA. The unusually flexible bonds of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen (C, N & O) give them special chemical properties such that it is difficult to conceive of life existing without them.

Fortunately for us, these three elements are among the more abundant in the universe. After hydrogen and helium (which composed the vast majority of the sun and the universe) they are the three most common types of atoms in our solar system and our galaxy. A remarkable thing is that C, N & O are far more abundant than elements before or after them on the periodic chart. Lithium, beryllium and boron before, and fluorine afterwards do not even make the top twenty five most common elements, and the only other element that comes close to C, N & O in abundance is chemically inert neon. The remaining elements in the top ten most common are iron, silicon, magnesium and sulfur, which are major components of Earth’s crust and core.

The reason for these elements abundance has to do with nuclear synthesis in stars. After the Big Bang, there was only hydrogen, a little helium, and trace amounts of lithium. Everything else has been produce in stars as they fuse hydrogen into helium other elements, making heavier elements and releasing energy in the process. In stars like our sun, this primarily happens by the direct route that is slowed by the weak nuclear force. However, in more massive stars a different path becomes possible that uses C, N & O as catalysts in what is known as the C-N-O cycle. This enables these massive stars to use up their hydrogen much faster, producing a lot of C, N & O in the process, and creating less stable stars that eventually explode in a supernova that blows much of the star’s matter into space and creates the heaviest elements, such as gold, lead and uranium. Thus our existence is in part the result of one or more stars exploding and seeding what became our solar system with their ashes.

Besides pointing out that not just anything will work as the building blocks for life and that one or more stars were sacrificed to enable our existence, I want to make the point out that the abundance of C, N & O is completely unrelated to their usefulness. The relative abundance of C, N & O has to do with their nuclear properties which in turn are based on the strong nuclear force and properties of neutrons and protons. The chemical properties, in turn, depend on the electrical force and the properties of electrons. There is no known fundamental physical reason why these two different processes should pick the same three elements.

I’ve gone on longer than I intended, so I’ll close with the observation that this is not the only one of seeming coincidences. Water, one of the most common compounds in our world, is also very unusual in its high ability to absorb heat, ability to dissolve ionic and non-ionic compounds, and that ice floats. For this reason, it is difficult to imagine life without the presence of water. These unique properties are a result of its unusual molecular structure resulting from electrical interactions and chemical bonding. Its high abundance on Earth and in the solar system stems that it is composed of the two most common chemically active elements in the solar system. Once again, nuclear processes give rise to the high abundance of something with unique chemical properties needed for life. This and the previous post may raise the question as to whether there is an explanation; I’d discuss several proposed ideas in my next post.

The Goldilocks Universe

As I pointed out in my last post, it seems to me that the very existence of the Universe demands an explanation that Science cannot provide. Natural science is fundamentally a description of the way the universe is and doesn't really address why it is one way and not another. A scientific explanation is at its heart a description of phenomena in terms of a more fundamental phenomenon. We say the apple falls because of gravity, which is an attraction between bodies that have mass, which might be further described in the way they affect space and time around them, or in terms of special particles or fields. Science can also tell us the many consequences, both obvious and subtle, were gravity to not exist, but ultimately, at the most fundamental level, it cannot tell us why our universe is constructed in a way that includes that which gives rise to gravity as opposed to one that doesn't. This is not because the science is incomplete, but because those questions belong to the realm of metaphysics, where we need philosophy or perhaps theology to answer them.

In addition to the curious fact that there is something rather than nothing, there is another curious fact that many things in our universe and world are just right for life. Just like Goldilocks found only one of several possible bowls of porridge to be just right, there are numerous fundamental entities and forces that are just right for a universe in which life could exist. Prime examples include the relative properties of different fundamental particles and the strengths of different fundamental forces which, if even slightly different, would result in a radically different and inhospitable universe.

One example involves protons and neutrons, the two particles of which the nucleus of all atoms are composed. While the known subatomic particles exhibit a large range of masses, somewhat unusually neutrons are almost exactly the same mass as protons, only about 0.1% heavier. This leads to the fact that an isolated neutron will eventually decay into a proton (though taking a much longer period than most subatomic particles) but neutrons are stable inside bonds that hold a nucleus together. If they were lighter than protons, protons would turn into neutrons, and no atoms would exist in the universe. If they were an additional 0.1%-0.2% percent heavier, they wouldn't be stable inside an atom and we would have a universe of only hydrogen. Even if just a little bit lighter-say only 0.05% heavier than protons-would give us a universe of massive thermonuclear bombs instead of stable stars. At that mass, neutrons could not decay into protons, since they also produce an electron in the process, and there would be roughly as many neutrons as protons in our universe. Besides size, the biggest difference between a hydrogen bomb and our sun is that the former contains lots of hydrogen that contains neutrons, which allows the nuclear reactions to happen very quickly, while the stars mostly consist of hydrogen that does not contain any neutrons. Thus if neutrons were just a tiny bit lighter, our sun and the rest of the stars would burn out quickly and be unstable in the process. In summary, of all the different masses a neutron could have, it lies within a very narrow range that makes it possible for ourselves and everything we know to exist.

Another example of the perfect balance of the universe is the strengths of the fundamental nuclear forces. These two are known as the strong and weak nuclear forces because by one way of measuring the strong one is about 1040 (ten thousand trillion trillion trillion) times stronger than the weak. Were the strong nuclear force only a few percent weaker, there would be no nuclear reactions in stars producing other elements because deuterium (a proton and neutron together which is the first step in the process) would not be stable. If it were a few percent stronger, regular hydrogen would become as explosive as that found in hydrogen bombs, as the strong force could bind two protons together without any neutrons. This is because the critical first step in nuclear fusion requires that the two forces work together to form deuterium out of two protons, which is really hard and therefore really slow due how weak the second force is. If it could be bypassed, or it were stronger, such 1/1039 the strength of the strong force, nuclear fusion would happen much faster, rendering most stars unstable. If on the other hand, it were even weaker, like 1/1041 the strength of the strong force, there would be little energy from the sun and few elements besides hydrogen.

These are but a few examples of situations were properties of fundamental particles and/or forces happen to lie in a narrow range that makes possible the universe that we know. There are others that involve gravity and the electrical force, the density of mater in the universe, the mass of neutrinos, and others. They are all situations where something is neither too strong nor too weak, neither too heavy nor too light, but are just right. These are also things for which we have no working theory as to why they have the strength or mass they do; it is conceivable that they could have had very different values, but we are fortunate that they have the specific values to allow the universe that we know to exist.

In my next few posts I will discuss more about some of the amazing balance that we find in the structure of the universe. These of course seem to me to be fingerprints that point to something more than material reality, but don't take my word for it yet.

Image: Test of hydrogen bomb "Mike".

A beginning must have a cause

In my previous post, I mentioned some of the evidence supporting the idea that our universe began about fourteen billion years ago in an unimaginable burst of energy that subsequently became all the matter and energy in the universe. The occurrence of this event known as the Big Bang is so well established that it undergrids pretty much every aspect of modern astronomy, as well as much of modern geology and biology, although not quite as directly. The evidence is strong enough that even some of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, including Phillip Johnson and William Dembski, accept an old Earth and old universe, even as they try to undermine evolutionary theory. When there are multiple pieces of evidence from disparate sources that all point to the same thing, it makes a strong case that thing is true.

Throughout our individual and corporate history, we observe that everything that began has a cause. A city has its founder(s), a child the coming together of its parents, a tsunami has its earthquake, and an automobile the company that made it. We would be incredulous with a court that stated that there was no agent that caused a crime, a doctor that told us that the cause of our symptoms was those very symptoms, or an archeologist that claimed Stonehenge was built by the rocks themselves. So when we state that the universe began in the Big Bang, we are implying that there is also something that caused it to begin, something that is other than the universe itself.

This, of course, raises questions about the nature of that cause. Either it, too, had a beginning and therefore a cause in a chain going back to time immortal, or it must be something that has no beginning, which could be referred to as the first cause. The second option is preferable not only from Occam’s Razor, but that the nature of our universe implies its cause exists outside of space and time as we know it. The most distant galaxies are receding from us at a rate that would violate Einstein’s theory of relativity if the universe was expanding into pre-existing space; that and other considerations point to that the expansion of the universe itself is creating space. The theory of relativity also reveals to us that time and space are closely entwined, so it is unclear if time and space as we know them even existed before the Big Bang. Thus, the universe’s cause probably exists outside of time and space as we understand them, which would again imply the cause had no beginning.

This leads to another conundrum. How could an eternal, beginningless cause cause something to begin at a specific time? An unchanging, impersonal force will always be doing the same thing, so a timeless cause would seem to imply a timeless effect. The only way an eternal cause could lead to an effect in time would be something about that cause change—like a decision made—but that change would have to come from within the cause itself. That would imply that this cause has at least some characteristics of a person—we are capable of deciding to do one thing or another without always having an outside cause. So it appears that the universe’s cause has at least certain aspects of personhood, namely the ability to freely make decisions, like “I am going to create a universe today.”

Thus the fact of the Big Bang implies there is something more than the physical universe. It implies that there is something that caused it to come into existence. It further implies that this something must be self-existent (not have a cause), immaterial (all mater was created in the Big Bang), eternal, outside of space and time, and having at least some characteristics of personhood, such as the ability to make decisions. In other words, the universe has a Creator.

Image: Hubble Deep Field image reveals a large number of distant galaxies. (NASA)

Thank God for the Big Bang

I thank God for the Big Bang. Seriously. After all, if there was no beginning of our universe, there would be no universe, no Sun, no Earth, no life and no people. But beyond providing for our existence, the Big Bang is one piece of evidence that points me to the Creator.

The evidence is quite strong that our universe exploded into existence in a cosmic fireball of unimaginable heat and density somewhere around fourteen billion years ago. There are multiple lines of evidence that support this. One is the recession of galaxies; based on the shifting of the wavelengths and the relative brightness of light coming from distant galaxies and supernovas, there is a clear pattern that the further away from us a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us. Second is the cosmic microwave background, a radio-wavelength signal that comes at us nearly uniformly from every direction in the sky. The best explanation on offer for that is “fossil” light from the early universe when atoms stated to form, that has had its wavelengths stretched to radio signal lengths by the expansion of the universe. Third is the relative abundance of elements in the primeval matter of the universe. There is still a lot of gas that has yet to be incorporated into stars or planets in our universe, which consists mostly of hydrogen, a little helium and traces of lithium. The relative abundances of these, which are consistent everywhere we can look, are best explained by a model in which the dense early universe past briefly through a phase in which it was cool enough for atomic nuclei to be stable but still hot and dense enough for some nuclear reactions to occur. Forth is the presence of heavier elements, such as carbon, iron and lead. These are not found in “pristine” matter in the universe, but rather are products of nuclear reactions in stars, with the heaviest elements like lead and gold being created in a supernova explosion when a massive star turns into a giant hydrogen bomb and blows the majority of its mass into surrounding space; once there some can be incorporated into new stellar systems, the way it appears to have happened for our solar system. With the even the shortest-lived stars having estimated lifetimes of several billion years, it took time to create all the iron and gold we use, but a much older universe would contain much more of that than what is observed. Coupled with observations from geology of sedimentation, crust renewal, fossils and various methods of radioactive dating, there are multiple lines of evidence that point to a beginning point in the distant past for the universe we live in.

It is these multiple lines of evidence, largely independent of each other but all pointing in the same direction, that gives us such strong confidence that the Big Bang is a fairly accurate description of what actually happened. Any one piece of evidence might be misinterpreted or could be explained by an alternative theory, but when taken together, a single theory that explains all these different observations is far more likely to be true than a set of unrelated, ad hoc theories that each just explain one observation. In the same way, I believe that there are quite a few different pieces of evidence that point to the existence of a God who created the universe and (surprisingly) is somehow involved in the affairs of ordinary people. There is no smoking gun or one piece that people have not already attempted to explain away, but put together they give me a high level of confidence that God is not a product of human imagination but a real being and the force behind the universe and that which is in it.

For many years I have read, listened and pondered about what science, scripture, and other lines of inquiry can tell us about the nature of the universe we live in. A synthesis has slowly formed in my mind, weaving together insights from diverse fields that I believe does them justice and gives me a more comprehensive view of the world we live in. But much of that has happened in isolation, and I hope this blog I am starting can be a forum to think about these issues more in community. If I am misleading myself or have misunderstood things, I need other people point that out. On the other hand, if I am right about some of these things, I think I have a moral obligation to share with others so that they can draw on any good insights I might actually have. I’d like to invite you to join me on this endeavor, following my blog as I post thoughts about once a week, making comments to keep me honest and asking questions if things are not clear. My desire is to write such that it is understandable and engaging for a wide range of areas of study and religious beliefs, which is more challenging but I believe ultimately more rewarding. Please keep that in mind as you interact with this blog.

Image: Artist's rendering of a supernova explosion, (c) NASA, retrieved from http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/175872main_sn2006gy_main_330.jpg