Science vs Religion part 2 William Haines

Last week, we were looking at the relationship between religion and science to dispel the myth that they are in conflict with each other. The idea that religion and science can replace one another is a misunderstanding. They are simply different ways of looking at the world and making sense of it. Historically, religious institutions, including the Catholic Church and other churches, have sponsored science throughout the ages. While there have been clashes, such as over Galileo, many of the greatest scientists have been people who believed in God. This notion that religion and science are always in conflict is a misinterpretation promoted by some who wish to argue that religion has no purpose or value.

The next topic we will explore is God and the origin of the universe. The first question is: has the universe always existed? This is a very important question. Normally, you all live somewhere, and you go in and out of your bedroom. Do you notice it as you walk in the front door? Not really. You just sort of walk in. What would make you notice something? If you saw something unusual, like someone hiding under the table, you would pay attention. When things are very familiar, we take them for granted. However, when something odd happens, we start asking questions. If everything is as it has always been, we don't ask questions; we just accept it.

If the universe has always existed, we don't need to explain its existence; we just take it for granted. But if it has not always existed, we may ask when it began, how it began, and why it exists. These questions have meaning. If the universe has always existed, asking when it began is meaningless, similar to asking where the beginning and end of a circle are. The biblical perspective is that God created the universe out of nothing, meaning the universe had a beginning. According to the Bible, God created the world in six days, which is not meant to be understood literally. The understanding is that the universe began with time, not in time. There wasn't a time when it began in the sense of being on a timeline; it was the beginning of the timeline.

The Greek perspective is different. Plato argued that prime matter has always existed because nothing can come from nothing. If a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, it is a trick; nothing can come from nothing. Aristotle echoed this by stating that God is eternal and unchanging, so the world must also be eternal and unchanging. These two perspectives—one that the universe had a beginning and one that it has always existed—have shaped scientific thought. In Europe, even though many were Christians, scientists generally accepted Aristotle's view that the universe had always existed. This was the prevailing assumption in science until very recently.

In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies are moving away from each other. He used a telescope and observed a phenomenon called redshift, which indicates that a star is moving away from the Earth. The light from the star shifts towards the red end of the spectrum, meaning the wavelengths are getting longer. This observation led to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. Hubble likened this to a balloon inflating, where all parts move away from each other. If you imagine a balloon with dots on it, as you inflate the balloon, the dots move away from each other. By reversing this process, you can predict that all the dots were once in the same place.

The balloon analogy helps us visualize the concept of everything moving away from each other. However, scientists were not universally happy with this discovery. Many tried to disprove it to return to the Aristotelian view. The reason for this reluctance was that if the universe had a beginning, it raised questions about what caused it, bringing God back into the conversation. If the universe had always existed, there was no need for God to explain its existence. As soon as it was established that the universe had a beginning, it prompted questions about its origin and existence.

These ideas were not confirmed until 1963 when scientists Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, working at Bell Laboratories, discovered a constant background radiation source across the universe. They found that no matter where they pointed their radio telescope, they could never find a zero; there was always this background radiation. This radiation is thought to be an echo of the Big Bang, similar to ripples in a pond after a pebble is thrown in. The conclusion was that this radiation came from a common source, suggesting that the universe had a beginning.

This led to the development of the Big Bang theory, which posits that the universe began from an infinitely small, dense, and hot point approximately 13 to 15 billion years ago. At that moment, time and space began together. The understanding is that time itself started at the Big Bang, so asking what happened before it doesn't make sense because there was no time before the Big Bang. This concept is crucial to understanding the origins of the universe. Stephen Hawking, a renowned physicist, wrote a famous book called 'A Brief History of Time,' which discusses these ideas.

Towards the end, he mentioned that science could predict that the Universe must have had a beginning. This is what Hubble and others predicted; the Universe had a beginning, but science could not predict how the Universe should begin. For that, one would have to appeal to God. This was the conclusion he reached in that particular book: science can predict that the Universe had a beginning, but to go beyond that, one must appeal to God. We will return to Stephen Hawking a bit later.

Now, what would you expect from a big bang? Suppose there is a huge explosion, like those terrorist explosions we see; what do you find? It is just a mess, isn't it? Rubble, destruction, disorder, randomness, ugliness. The whole Universe, then, concentrated into something less than the size of a pinhead, suddenly exploded and massively expanded. The reality is that the Universe is not chaotic; it is not disordered or random. In fact, it is a cosmos. There is order, and we can discover the laws of physics that govern the Universe. The Universe is extraordinarily complex and beautiful, which is not what you would expect from a random explosion.

So, the question is, why would it be like this? It is a bit like supposing you gathered all the materials for building a house—bricks, wood, nails—and piled them up. You might think that in order to turn all this into a beautiful house, what is required is a lot of energy. If you were a bit lazy, you might consider using a stick of dynamite to blow it up, hoping that the energy would cause the bricks to fall into place and create a beautiful house. Do you think that would work?

If you did it a million times, would it work? Is it not a subjective thing to call something beautiful, like the Universe's order? It suits us because it creates an environment where we can exist, so we think of it as beautiful. However, that is surely subjective. Not necessarily. If you look at something beautiful, such as a piece of music or a symphony, it actually has order; it is not just random notes. If you look at a painting, you can see there is structure; it is not random. Randomness is something like the background noise you get on a radio. What you might expect is chaos, but instead, you get this incredible structure and complexity.

Now, what were the initial conditions of the Big Bang? What was it like when it all started? The first thing to note is that it was smooth. If the Big Bang had been too ragged, the result would have been turbulence and a cosmos filled with black holes. This means that the Universe, when it expanded, did so very smoothly. If it had expanded a little bit raggedly, with some areas denser than others, then those turbulent areas would have turned into black holes, which is what you would normally expect. Richard Penrose, a mathematician, calculated that the chance of a smooth beginning is one in 10 to the power of 10,123. That is a huge number. The likelihood of that happening is so remote that you are actually more likely to win the lottery every day of your life.

If someone won the lottery one day, you would be surprised if they won two days in a row. If someone claimed to have won the lottery every day for the last ten years, you would think they were cheating. For the Universe to have a smooth beginning is basically impossible. You would think someone is cheating; it is not what you would expect. The chance of it happening is so improbably remote that it is highly unlikely. Much more likely would be a cosmos of black holes, and if there had been a lot of black holes, there would be no life; we wouldn't exist. There would be nothing to think about.

Another issue is the expansion problem. To avoid recollapse within a fraction of a second, the Universe was expanding so fast that galaxies never condensed. Another mathematician calculated that a one part in a million speed decrease when the Big Bang was one second old would have led to a recollapse before the temperature fell below 10,000 Kelvin. A similar increase in speed would mean stars would never have formed. If the speed had to be exactly what it was, just one part in a million slower, then it would have collapsed back in on itself. If it had been a little bit too fast, it would have kept expanding, and galaxies would never have formed. Again, this is incredibly unlikely.

If you look at the weak nuclear force, it controls proton-proton fusion. If this force were a bit stronger, all matter would become helium and heavier elements. If it all became helium and heavier elements, there would be no water because water requires hydrogen, which is a single proton. If the weak nuclear force were a little bit weaker, there would only be helium since it makes neutrons decay into protons. This weak nuclear force had to be exactly the way it was; otherwise, we wouldn't have hydrogen, and there would be no life. We wouldn't be here talking about it.

Then there is the strong nuclear force. A 2% increase would mean quarks would not turn into protons, and there would be no hydrogen. A 5% weakening would unbind the deuteron, and there would be no elements heavier than hydrogen. Again, if the strong nuclear force were just slightly different, we wouldn't have all the heavier elements necessary for life. Then there is electromagnetism, which Maxwell described in his equations. A change of just one part in 10 to the power of 40 would affect star formation. If it were slightly stronger, we would have red stars that are too cold; if slightly weaker, we would have blue, very hot, radioactive, short-lived stars. A double strength would mean 10 to the power of 62 years would be needed for life to evolve, by which time all the protons would have decayed. Just doubling the force would mean no possibility of life in the Universe.

Finally, gravity is 10 to the power of 39 times weaker than electromagnetism. A slight change in this proportion would affect the actual strength, making it possible for clouds to form stable structures that do not fragment. Gravity, in relation to the strength of magnetism, has to be precisely this kind of ratio. This presents a puzzle: how can we explain this?

Suppose anyone here bakes cakes. Now, imagine you went into a kitchen you have never been in before, and you are blindfolded. You are told to bake a cake. You have to find your way around the kitchen, opening cupboards to find flour, weighing it out without being able to look at the scales, and measuring out butter or margarine, milk, sugar, and everything else. You have to figure out how the oven works without seeing it. What is the likelihood of you baking a nice cake? Even if you follow instructions, you might still make a horrible cake. The likelihood of everything in the Universe being exactly the way it is, is like trying to bake a cake blindfolded in an unfamiliar kitchen. Everything had to be completely smooth; if the yeast or whatever is not distributed evenly throughout the dough, some parts will rise while others collapse. The likelihood of this happening is one part in 10 to the power of a thousand, and everything had to be exactly like that.

How do you explain this? One recent scientific answer is the idea that gravity created the Universe. Stephen Hawking, in his most recent book called 'The Grand Design', stated that because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, and why we exist. Hawking does not believe in a personal God. He suggests that gravity created the Universe. What do you think about this answer?

If gravity created the Universe, what questions remain? Why is there gravity? If the Universe came into existence because gravity exists, then why is there gravity? This raises the question of why there is a law of gravity. So, it does not actually answer the question; it just postpones it. From his point of view, gravity created the Universe, but does that mean gravity is God? Scientists think gravity existed before the Big Bang. Was it before infinite density? There must have been some heavy gravity. Hawking suggests that because there is a law such as gravity, it is a law that describes the force of gravity. He likely means the laws of physics or mathematics, perhaps viewing mathematics as God.

However, this raises further questions. Is gravity a law or a force? From a religious perspective, one might say that gravity is an expression of the universal Prime Force of God. God is a God of heart, a God of love, but also a God of power. In that sense, the power of gravity is an expression of God's power. When Hawking says gravity spontaneously causes the Universe to come into being, one could agree that gravity is one expression of the power of God. However, it does not make sense to say that the expression itself became the cause. The expression of gravity is not the cause of the Universe; it came into existence at the same time as the Universe itself.

One would say that God has always existed; God is eternal and the source of infinite power. In that sense, gravity is one aspect or one way of describing that power. It has always existed but is a characteristic and an expression of two different things. How can we explain this? Another way is to say that the laws of science created the Universe. Hawking stated that the question is whether the way the Universe began was chosen by God for reasons we cannot understand or determined by a law of science. He believes the latter. If you like, you can call the laws of science God, but it would not be a personal God that you could meet and ask questions. What do you think about that statement?

He suggests that the way the Universe began was either chosen by God or determined by science. However, he makes a definitive statement that it is not a personal being, seeing science as the entirety. What assumption is he making? He assumes that the Universe had a beginning. We know that the Universe had a beginning. He assumes that if there is a God, then we cannot understand it, while with science, we can understand. He would probably say the reverse if he explored it further. He is saying that either the Universe was chosen by God for reasons we cannot understand or determined by the laws of science. Is it true that we cannot understand why God created the Universe?

I believe we can understand why God created the Universe. Stephen Hawking's perspective raises many questions about the nature of existence and the relationship between science and divinity.

Many people struggle to understand why God created the universe. Most religions provide explanations for this question. For example, from a Biblical perspective, God created the universe and human beings because God is love. Love is not something one can experience alone; it is meant to be shared with another being. Therefore, in order to share His love and form relationships, God created beings through which He could experience joy. This suggests that there are logical reasons for why God created the universe, contradicting the assumption that we cannot understand this purpose.

The question of why God created the universe is not a scientific one; it is philosophical or metaphysical. While scientists often ask 'why' questions, they are typically seeking 'how' answers. For instance, when they ask why ice melts into water, they are really inquiring about the process involved. This distinction is important because it highlights that the question of purpose is more aligned with religious inquiry. Thus, dismissing the idea that God created the universe based on a scientific perspective overlooks the possibility of understanding divine motivations.

If one were to provide a convincing explanation for why God created the universe and human beings, it would challenge the notion that we cannot know this. The creation of the universe by God becomes plausible, presenting an alternative view. The idea that the laws of science could be considered a form of God, albeit not a personal one, raises further questions. Is it possible to ask God questions and receive answers? Throughout history, many individuals have claimed to have received revelations from God, which they documented in sacred texts such as the Quran and the Bible. These revelations were not from mad individuals but from people who were often seen as normal and good, suggesting that some have indeed communicated with God.

One might wonder why there are so many inconsistencies in these revelations. A significant reason is that many of these texts were written in specific languages, each with its own nuances. Perfect translation between languages is nearly impossible, as each language is socially constructed and rooted in different cultures. For example, translating directly from Japanese to English is challenging due to the unique concepts embedded in each language. Thus, the differences in the content of revelations can often be attributed to the languages in which they were expressed.

When discussing the origins of the universe, one must consider the validity of various perspectives. While scientists continue to explore this question, the language of science—mathematics—serves as a universal medium. It is indeed possible to question written scriptures, and many do. People often assess whether these ancient texts make sense in today's context or seek to understand their meanings as they were intended by the original authors. This process is akin to literary criticism, where modern readers may struggle to grasp the nuances of older texts without context or guidance.

Understanding ancient scriptures requires significant effort, as language and cultural contexts have evolved. Just as modern slang can be incomprehensible to older generations, ancient languages can present similar challenges. The Bible, for instance, was not originally written in English, and many expressions lose their meaning in translation. A deeper understanding can often be gained by studying the original Hebrew or Greek texts. This complexity highlights the difficulty of fully grasping the experiences and meanings conveyed in ancient scriptures without the appropriate cultural and historical context.

In conclusion, while all scriptures and traditions may hold validity, they each provide insights into ultimate questions relevant to their respective times. Some texts resonate more deeply with contemporary readers, while others may feel distant or irrelevant. Despite the differences in language and culture, many scriptures address universal human emotions and experiences, allowing readers to connect with the characters and stories. However, the challenge remains that language is historically and culturally conditioned, making it difficult to uncover the full meaning of ancient texts. Mathematics, in contrast, transcends these barriers, representing a universal language that can convey truths across time and culture. Yet, it lacks the personal touch found in narratives and revelations, which is essential for understanding the human experience.

Angels sometimes lead to different explanations, and Muhammad, for example, said that an angel came and dictated these things to him. The words of many of the prophets in the Old Testament are said to be from God. I take these things as they make sense for me. In terms of personal opinion, I think having an experience with God is possible, though not easy. For me, it is impossible to explain why the universe exists and why it is as it is without assuming the existence of God.

I believe Stephen Hawking is a great scientist, but I don't think he understands much about theology. Many of his statements about God are quite naive. He understands science and mathematics well, but he lacks a deep understanding of philosophy and theology. There are many religious people who claim we can understand why God created the universe, and perhaps Hawking hasn't read those theological works. Just because he cannot comprehend why God created the universe does not mean others haven't thought about it and come up with good reasons.

Hawking concludes that there is no personal God, but religious literature is filled with accounts of people who have had personal experiences with God. They describe God as a personal being who knows them intimately. Just because Hawking hasn't had such an experience does not mean that no one else has. He is generalising from his own experience, which is not a sound scientific argument. It is akin to a person born blind claiming that light does not exist; their inability to see does not negate the experiences of those who can.

Hawking admits to the existence of God but does not see God as a personal entity with whom one can form a relationship. He refers to God's laws as the laws of science, which is not a sensible perspective. Laws are merely descriptions of patterns; for example, the law of gravity describes how objects behave under certain conditions. In this sense, laws do not act or create; they simply describe what happens. Hawking's view that quantum fields created the universe raises further questions about the nature of existence.

Lawrence Krauss, a well-known physicist, argues in his book 'A Universe from Nothing' that the total energy of the universe is zero. He suggests that before the Big Bang, there was a quantum vacuum with unstable quantum fields but no matter. These quantum fields could spontaneously create particles, leading to the universe's emergence as a quantum fluctuation. However, this interpretation of 'nothing' is different from the traditional understanding, as it still assumes the existence of quantum fields.

Krauss's argument implies that even as an atheist, he must assume the existence of quantum fields to explain the universe's origin. If there were truly nothing, there would be no fields, and thus, the Big Bang could not occur. This raises the question of whether these quantum fields are eternal. If they are, one might argue that they are akin to God, as both imply something eternal from which everything else arises. From a religious perspective, these fields could be seen as an expression of divine energy, suggesting that the scientific explanation is valid but not complete.

Another way to explain the existence of the universe without invoking God is through the Multiverse Theory. This theory posits that multiple universes exist, and ours just happens to support life. If there are an infinite number of universes, it is statistically likely that at least one would have the perfect conditions for life. This theory attempts to address the question of how we can explain a universe that seems so unlikely, but it raises further questions about the nature of existence and evidence for other universes.