Theology in
a Dynamic Universe
The world-view of science has changed several
times in the course of the twentieth century. In the first half, the hypothesis
prevailed that the universe existed since infinite time, without beginning and end.
Observations suggested later a view in which the cosmos formed a few billion
years ago. Towards the end of the century it was becoming more and more evident
that both views are wrong. No object in the present universe formed in the Big
Bang. For example, the Sun’s age is only one third of that of the current
universe, and human consciousness has existed only for a few hundred thousand
years. The conditions for the formation of structures such as atoms, galaxies,
living beings etc. emerged only in the course of time. The cosmos appeared not
like in a theater when the curtain raises, the stage is set, and the play
begins. In the modern view the universe materialized much more dramatically, as
if in the beginning there was only a glowing magma that solidified to stone
from which a building was made. Therein a workshop for stage constructions and
an actors’ school formed, a stage and the auditorium were built, everything
collapsed, was rebuilt etc. and finally our play started.
In our Milky Way, a regular galaxy of a few
hundred billion stars, some hundred million stars are forming today. The
formation of stars takes roughly ten million years. Thus about ten new stars
are born every year in our astronomical neighborhood. The cosmos overflows with
fertility.
Stars evolve from interstellar molecular
clouds, well known for their beautiful, fluffy, dark structures. In places
where the gas is denser, gravity attracts more gas. The fluctuation gets even
denser and attracts more, so the process reinforces itself. Interstellar matter
gradually concentrates in this way into cloud cores until they collapse under
their own gravity. The gas then falls freely towards the center of the core
where the remaining angular momentum forms it to a rotating disk.
After ten million years the temperature and
density in the center become large enough to start the fusion of hydrogen to
helium. Nuclear energy of stupendous proportions is unleashed and the
additional gas pressure stops further contraction. In the innermost part of the
vortice, an equilibrium is formed between gravity and
pressure: the star is born.
Star formation is an example of how heavenly
bodies are created even today. However, the capacity of formation has a reverse
side: decay and death. When the energy is exhausted, stars shrink to white
dwarf stars or explode as supernovae and heave a part of their matter and ashes
into interplanetary space. There, new stars form again. It is not an eternal
cycle, but an evolutionary step. Completely new structures such as planets,
asteroids and comets may emerge from the cinders from previous star
generations.
When we look up at the starry sky on a clear
night and believe that at least the stars are the same as always, this
impression arises from the fact that our time-scale is too small. In reality,
the universe displays amazing dynamics; the origin of stars and formation of
planets only represents a segment of processes that build upon earlier cosmic
developments such as the formation of matter out of elementary particles in the
early universe or the origin of galaxies. Qualitative development is a
fundamental characteristic of the cosmos, and time plays a crucial role.
Is a creator involved in this dynamic
creativity? For more than two hundred years scientists pointed out again and
again that this hypotheses is not needed (such as P.S. Laplace in the 18th
century). Obviously, much remains unexplained scientifically, yet there are
already models of how even the universe may have formed from a vacuum according
to physical laws. In this sense there are no gaps in the development of the
universe from the Big Bang to the evolution of humans that could be interpreted
only by the action of a supernatural being. Existing gaps are the working
fields of scientists, who have the great goal to diminish and close them.
Yet at least one essential question remains:
Why did something form and not nothing? The question addresses the fundamental
issue concerning the basis for the laws of nature. That all things have formed
is indisputable, and considerations similar to Greek philosophers in the fifth
century BC on the basis of the being are appropriate. Its modern analogue in a
dynamic universe would be the “Basis of Formation”. Appealing here to God’s
creative will, however, may introduce a mere metaphysical entity without direct
relation neither to science nor to the questioner.
The biblical notion of God originates not from philosophical
nor scientific reflections. It is based on experiences and perceptions that
differ fundamentally from those of science: the mystical vision of a burning
bush, the safeguarding during the escape from
Scientific measurements and observations must
be reproducible and objective. The researcher is exchangeable and the result
independent. In religious perceptions, on the contrary, a human being is always
strongly involved. I would not say that such participating perceptions are
purely subjective, as they usually refer to an object. More important, they
change the life of many people in a visible and often very positive way. If
“reality” denotes what has a lasting effect in real life, these perceptions
testify to the experienced reality. The human being directly takes part in the
process of perception. In fact, it is the proper observing instrument. Thus the
observer is not interchangeable, a situation similar to art where experiences
equally require participation and are universally human. Participating
perceptions may be metaphorically described as a resonance phenomenon between
object and observer.
It follows that the seminal perceptions, the
very starting points of science and religion, are fundamentally different. The
two fields of experience consequently span two different planes of methodology
and language. It leads to misunderstanding and false expectations in the
present discourse between science and theology, when the two planes of
perception are not clearly separated. It is not just the difference of language
games that separates the two. Their different origin is the reason why science
will never find God, nor be able to deny his existence. It is as hopeless to
find a compelling trace of God in scientific results as to find a palm tree in
a Canadian forest. It is the wrong place to search. There is no direct path
from scientific measurements to religious experience.
The path can only be indirect and through the
human consciousness. For example, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe to
the benefit of evolution is certainly amazing. If a person believes in God
based on other experiences, he or she
can apprehend in the cosmic evolution the work of God. Only then the Basis of
Formation becomes what is meant by the biblical concept of God. Without
participating perceptions it remains an abstract principle.
The continuous unfolding of the universe may be
interpreted in religious terms as a continuous creation. This may sound rather
inconspicuous, but it changes significantly the world-view concerning the
present and the future. The dialogue of science and faith should therefore not
be fixed to the past, but include the reflection on the future which, aspired
or feared, inevitably penetrates into the present and into human existence.
On the side of science, predictions concerning
the exhaustion of an energy supply are very reliable. The remaining lifetime of
the Sun, some 6 billion years, is well known. Its decay is certain. For systems
with many interacting parts, like the planetary system or the terrestrial
weather, this is different. Their development is unpredictable after a certain
time, and thus their future is open. Such systems develop non-linearly and are
called chaotic. There is an intriguing asymmetry between the decay of all
objects in the universe, which we can predict quite accurately, and chaotic
systems that cannot be predicted and that even may form new structures. In the
long range, astrophysics can only predict decay. The new cannot be foreseen,
although it can never be excluded. There is no scientifically provable hope.
On the religious side, hope is a central
element. It is hope despite decay, even despite reason, and ultimately hope in
the face of death. The basis of hope is not a part of this world. Science and
religion have different perspectives, and here some tension becomes apparent.
Faced with the two counter-streaming developments
of decay and unpredictable formation, the human consciousness seeks to
recognize a pattern. Regarding the future, we search for and select the “signs
of the times”. Pattern recognition is a basic means of human apprehension
distinct from pure measurement, but common to both science and religion.
Pattern recognition means that we interpret facts and construct their meaning.
Construction is necessary if a phenomenon cannot be partitioned into elements
having mathematical relations. Two steps are required:
First, out of countless perceptions and
experiences human reason selects facts that are considered relevant. This
selection may occur unconsciously, without reflection or even by a computer.
The second step in construction is the association with a fitting pattern.
Patterns are derived from previous perceptions and experiences constituting
mental prototypes. A pattern is recognized by its similarity with the new
situation, if the probe and the example agree within a certain margin. Errors
can occur when a pattern is not recognized or a pattern is erroneously found to
fit. The two-step interpretation by selection and pattern recognition
constitutes a successful method for certain problems and has important
applications in technology, such as robotics.
The way we anticipate the future depends on how
we interpret the present. There is a choice of various patterns: It is getting better; it remains as it has ever been; it gets worse and worse; or something new
will appear. The forth pattern is central for the Christian hope, where the
events of Good Friday and Easter are the archetypal pattern. The four patterns
are exclusive. Independent interpretations of the same present may thus
contradict each other. Only later experiences will confirm or refute an interpretation.
Interpreting the present is important as the
coming future may require preparation, initiative or defense. Human beings are
masters of interpretation, very likely because reliable pattern recognition was
a selective advantage in the evolution of the Hominidae. Those who interpreted
well had more chances to survive and to have descendents. The future punishes
those who interpret wrongly.
The tension between science and religion
concerning the anticipation of the future cannot be fully harmonized and must
remain. It is the tension between practical knowledge and visionary hope. This
tension is within ourselves, not between fields of inquiry. It is an important
part of reality and of our life.
The two planes come into constructive contact
when a pattern of one plane serves as an image in the other. This comes about
when a religious experience is expressed by a metaphor (Greek for transfer) from science. A metaphor
transfers a well-known pattern (e.g. the formation of new structure) into the
other plane of perception and concepts. The notion of “hope” could thus be
communicated by the following metaphor:
“Despite
decay and death something new will arise out of this existence, just as our
planet formed from cosmic dust, the ashes of former stars.”
Note that the hope expressed here cannot be
deduced from the physics of planet formation, but must originate in the plane
of religious perceptions where this boundless confidence is experienced.
Hope for the “wholly other new” is one of
several patterns for the interpretation of the signs of the times. If we live
with this pattern, the past development of the universe may become a metaphor
for the future of our existence. And more: By interpreting scientific results
with this pattern, we evaluate them based on other, additional experiences. The
scientific facts then appear in another perspective and in a different light:
The universe is revealed as a continuous creation, and there is hope for new
creation also in the future.