I’ve had God on my mind lately, as I’ve been finishing an invited essay for the upcoming Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity. The title is “Does the Universe Need God?“, and you can read the whole thing on my website by clicking.
I commend the editors, Jim Stump and Alan Padgett, for soliciting a contribution that will go against the grain of most of the other essays. As you might guess, my answer to the title question is “No,” while many of the other entries will be arguing “Yes” (or at least be sympathetic to that view). I think of my job as less about changing minds than informing — I want thoughtful people who are committed Christians reading this volume to at least understand where I am coming from, even if they don’t agree. Think of it as an elaboration of “Why (Almost All) Cosmologists Are Atheists,” which was a bit breezier.
Hopefully there is still a bit of time for tweaking the essay before the editors get back to me with their comments, so please let me know if you think I’m getting something importantly wrong. Again, the whole thing is here, but I’m including the final section (minus the footnotes) as a teaser below the fold. In the earlier sections I do more nitty-gritty cosmological stuff, talking about the Big Bang, the anthropic principle, and meta-explanatory maneuvers. In this section I finally evaluate the God hypothesis in scientific terms.
God as a theory
Religion serves many purposes other than explaining the natural world. Someone who grew up as an altar server, volunteers for their church charity, and has witnessed dozens of weddings and funerals of friends and family might not be overly interested in whether God is the best explanation for the value of the mass of the electron. The idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis.
However, accounting for the natural world is certainly a traditional role for God, and arguably a foundational one. How we think about other religious practices depends upon whether our understanding of the world around us gives us a reason to believe in God. And insofar as it attempts to provide an explanation for empirical phenomena, the God hypothesis should be judged by the standards of any other scientific theory.
Consider a hypothetical world in which science had developed to something like its current state of progress, but nobody had yet thought of God. It seems unlikely that an imaginative thinker in this world, upon proposing God as a solution to various cosmological puzzles, would be met with enthusiasm. All else being equal, science prefers its theories to be precise, predictive, and minimal – requiring the smallest possible amount of theoretical overhead. The God hypothesis is none of these. Indeed, in our actual world, God is essentially never invoked in scientific discussions. You can scour the tables of contents in major physics journals, or titles of seminars and colloquia in physics departments and conferences, looking in vain for any mention of possible supernatural intervention into the workings of the world.
At first glance, the God hypothesis seems simple and precise – an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. (There are other definitions, but they are usually comparably terse.) The apparent simplicity is somewhat misleading, however. In comparison to a purely naturalistic model, we’re not simply adding a new element to an existing ontology (like a new field or particle), or even replacing one ontology with a more effective one at a similar level of complexity (like general relativity replacing Newtonian spacetime, or quantum mechanics replacing classical mechanics). We’re adding an entirely new metaphysical category, whose relation to the observable world is unclear. This doesn’t automatically disqualify God from consideration as a scientific theory, but it implies that, all else being equal, a purely naturalistic model will be preferred on the grounds of simplicity.
There is an inevitable tension between any attempt to invoke God as a scientifically effective explanation of the workings of the universe, and the religious presumption that God is a kind of person, not just an abstract principle. God’s personhood is characterized by an essential unpredictability and the freedom to make choices. These are not qualities that one looks for in a good scientific theory. On the contrary, successful theories are characterized by clear foundations and unambiguous consequences. We could imagine boiling God’s role in setting up the world down to a few simple principles (e.g., “God constructs the universe in the simplest possible way consistent with the eventual appearance of human beings”). But is what remains recognizable as God?
Similarly, the apparent precision of the God hypothesis evaporates when it comes to connecting to the messy workings of reality. To put it crudely, God is not described in equations, as are other theories of fundamental physics. Consequently, it is difficult or impossible to make predictions. Instead, one looks at what has already been discovered, and agrees that that’s the way God would have done it. Theistic evolutionists argue that God uses natural selection to develop life on Earth; but religious thinkers before Darwin were unable to predict that such a mechanism would be God’s preferred choice.
Ambitious approaches to contemporary cosmological questions, such as quantum cosmology, the multiverse, and the anthropic principle, have not yet been developed into mature scientific theories. But the advocates of these schemes are working hard to derive testable predictions on the basis of their ideas: for the amplitude of cosmological perturbations, signals of colliding pocket universes in the cosmic microwave background, and the mass of the Higgs boson and other particles. For the God hypothesis, it is unclear where one would start. Why does God favor three generations of elementary particles, with a wide spectrum of masses? Would God use supersymmetry or strong dynamics to stabilize the hierarchy between the weak scale and the Planck scale, or simply set it that way by hand? What would God’s favorite dark matter particle be?
This is a venerable problem, reaching far beyond natural theology. In numerous ways, the world around us is more like what we would expect from a dysteleological set of uncaring laws of nature than from a higher power with an interest in our welfare. As another thought experiment, imagine a hypothetical world in which there was no evil, people were invariably kind, fewer natural disasters occurred, and virtue was always rewarded. Would inhabitants of that world consider these features to be evidence against the existence of God? If not, why don’t we consider the contrary conditions to be such evidence?
Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world. He isn’t needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the scientific revolution has been in the realm of methodology. Control groups, double-blind experiments, an insistence on precise and testable predictions – a suite of techniques constructed to guard against the very human tendency to see things that aren’t there. There is no control group for the universe, but in our attempts to explain it we should aim for a similar level of rigor. If and when cosmologists develop a successful scientific understanding of the origin of the universe, we will be left with a picture in which there is no place for God to act – if he does (e.g., through subtle influences on quantum-mechanical transitions or the progress of evolution), it is only in ways that are unnecessary and imperceptible. We can’t be sure that a fully naturalist understanding of cosmology is forthcoming, but at the same time there is no reason to doubt it. Two thousand years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to invoke God as an explanation for natural phenomena; now, we can do much better.
None of this amounts to a “proof” that God doesn’t exist, of course. Such a proof is not forthcoming; science isn’t in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. Unsuccessful theories are never disproven, as we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena; they just fade away as better theories gain acceptance. Attempting to explain the natural world by appealing to God is, by scientific standards, not a very successful theory. The fact that we humans have been able to understand so much about how the natural world works, in our incredibly limited region of space over a remarkably short period of time, is a triumph of the human spirit, one in which we can all be justifiably proud.
@41
The question *why* is a failure to grasp the world around one’s self, like why did this happen to me?
Rather than a superficial quest into a why,why,why,circular trap of reasoning.
If you ask how then you can avoid many why questions that have no meaning in the construction of a concrete reality.
*Why* is an unending question, why does it rain, why does water condensate,why is the atmosphere cool,etc.
Richard Feynman on the question *why*.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
univers IS God.
It’s interesting to note that the inspiration and confidence to undertake scientific enquiry emerged from a theology that separated the Creator from the creation, Wis 11:21, and a desire to search for God’s handiwork, Ps19.
One wonders then if the inspiration and confidence was not there, would science have emerged at all? Pierre Duhem and Stanley Jaki, and more recently James Hannam, make compelling arguments in favour the birth of science under a medieval Catholic theology.
As for your article – Why (Almost All) Cosmologists Are Atheists – I’m surprised it does not contain any discussions on whether these Cosmologists who are atheists either started out as atheists or they lost their faith through thier scientific work. Furthermore a discussion on the contributions to Cosmology from Grossteste and Cusa would have been helpful.
Sean you’ve put a lot of effort into this and I think generally you’ve contributed to the understanding of the universe and the understanding of what we know about it.
I do have a major quibble about use of “God”. It seems to me that when you speak of “God” you psychologically at least cede the high ground. To speak of something as a proper noun usually presupposes it exists and you are discussing it. I realize you are not doing that but the psychology is there.
I believe you’d make your point better and represent the real theological situation better if you replaced most occurrences of “God” by “a god” or more precisely “a god or gods”. In places you could use “his god” or “their gods” and such.
In arguing a god is not needed you don’t want to seem to assume there is one. Also different people believe in different gods, with some believing in multiple gods. The “a god” language recognizes these facts and moves the argument to neutral linguistic ground.
Does the univers “need” somethingat all?
@ Joseph Smidt
I’ve seen your type of argument before, and here’s where it falls apart for me:
Person 1: “So, since in our universe everything needs a cause, but that leaves us without a first cause, we are going to step outside the realm of stuff we normally understand to get the proper answer.”
Person 2: “I’m not sure that’s the case, but it makes sense.”
Person 1: “You can think of this like a transfinite number, or Goedel’s proof, where the only way to describe it correctly is to jump outside the system.”
Person 2: “Interesting, I follow you.”
Person 1: “And that cause outside the system needs to be a conscious, free-willed, infinitely powerful and benevolent interventionist entity.”
Person 2: “Wait, what?”
That’s the rub. Even positing the need to step outside the system, there is no scientific reason to assume any of the characteristics that people associate with God. Even rationality, as you claim: there’s nothing that makes the rules here particularly rational.
Time reversal solution in GR:
I’m not sure if you’re still reading comments, Sean, but I’m curious as to whether a time reversal in GR for a contracting universe without a time-dependent scale factor is a physically meaningful solution. It seems to me that such a solution would imply locally that objects would be “anti-gravitational”. This is a perfectly valid solution to the Einstein Equations, but did Einstein really consider it a viable cosmology? Or maybe I’m missing something. (Likely that!)
Hi Sean,
I liked your article. In particular I agree with your point wrt fine tuning that option 1 is not given enough credence.
Just for me could you use SI units – ergs per cubic centimeter area bit parochial.
Cheers
Mat
Hey Sean,
Very interesting blog entry. I am a Christian, I do believe in God. But I am also a scientist (physician actually) and can definitely respect your systematic approach to answering this question. I think you would agree that the universe is quite a vast place and although we have made a lot of progress in understanding the underlying physical parameters–nothing is absolute. Science is always making progress and we are (hopefully) coming closer and closer to Truth.
One thing that I struggle with and find irreconcilable scientifically when you try to disprove God is actually one of the fundamental laws of science, namely the law of conservation of energy. If energy is neither created or destroyed (same goes with matter), then where does it come from? I’m not up on the latest science as to the origin of everything, but the “Big Bang Theory” still seems to be prevalent, at least colloquially. My question is, where did all the matter/energy initially come from?
If someone were to discover a loop-hole in this fundamental principle, I believe that the argument against the existence of God would be much stronger. But as a firm believer in God, I find everything that I know to be true to be tethered to that principle.
On a side note…I find science to be much to perfect and ordered to be just random.
Hopefully you get a a chance to read this and give some feedback.
-Chase
@Chase. I’ll save Sean the trouble of answering that one again:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
The important points:
1) Gravitational fields can produce or consume any of the forms of energy that are generally treated in the standard model.
2) While you can do bookkeeping and treat the energy as being stored within the gravitational field, it’s a little screwy (in particular, speaking of a gravitational energy density seems a lot less physically meaningful than we would like)
3)That said, if you insist on preserving energy conservation anyway, the total energy content of the universe ends up being zero — it has to do with the fact that the universe is geometrically flat, as measured by CMB experiments. Thus, to the extent that energy conservation holds in General Relativity, the generation of the universe from empty space would not violate it. (Now mind you, it is not known that the pre-big-bang state of the universe was empty space, but assuming that does not create any energy conservation problems at least.)
Interestingly you end your article mentioning the human “Spirit”. Do you care to elaborate or explain for the use?
Has science explained the spirit concept?
Jonathan’s view is the closest to mine. In your response to him, you claimed that grounding religion in explaining the world is the most intellectual respectable thing to do. I think this reflects the fundamental difference between certain classes of views. First, I think there is a number of activities and human experiences that are completely legitimate, even though not intellectualy respectable. Watching the final four, bowling, so forth. Even creating art and talking with the neighbor are not necessarily rational projects, but are no less important because of it. Participating in religious practices could just be another such example, without implying anything unsavory. So not everything has to be intellectually “respectable”. Once more, it seems to the extent that we force people to deffend religion as a type of science we make a categorical mistake, and this leads to ID and all the other horrors. So I think your equating the two things is the scene of the crime.
At the scientific level, a lot has been learned for the past 20 centuries of course, but at the philosophical one, the atheist position is exactly the same since the “De Rerum Natura” of the famous epicureanist Lucretius ( http://www.iep.utm.edu/lucretiu/ ). It’s kind of funny that many modern scientists think they have invented any new philosophically relevant arguments since epicureanism, just because many scientifically relevant discoveries have been made since then, while actually, at the philosophical level, not much has changed. The true difficult questions are not whether one needs a “creator” as a primary cause or not, but rather the questions of the emergence of consciousness and those on the nature of free will, or whether a part of mystery will always remain or not when a system starts thinking about itself. For instance, the way epicureanists were trying to reconcile their deterministic physicalism with free will was through “clinamen”, i.e. indetermination, an incredibly modern intuition. There have also been counter-arguments to that. It’s a fascinating philosophical topic, but up to now modern science hasnt added much to it.
Definitionally, a definition of God as “an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being” while traditional (was it Aquinas that made it a standard?), isn’t a very good operational definition of how we separate religious and non-religious thinking. It is a poor fit to polythesism, animism, or many Eastern religious concepts like Tao and Kharma.
More useful as an operational definition of that which is divine would be “some being or power that acts with moral purpose or an agenda for human events, in the lives of humans, that is not human, a human creation, or an ordinary animal.” One can worry the “ordinary” part of animal a bit, but the notion is to exclude the moral acts of gorillas and dolphins and dogs and cats and the like, without necessarily ruling out the like of angels, demons, jinn, ghosts, Gaia, and so on. Charlotte of Charlotte’s Web is perhaps a gray area in this definition — she being no ordinary spider.
Under this operational definition, the deist conception of a Newtonian clockmaker God, reimagined as something setting the Big Bang in motion and fixing the laws of nature, without more, would not constitute God, even if it were done by some gray haired titan surrounded by an Army of angels.
This operational definition also excludes a truly pure version of a scorekeeper God, one who rewards and punishes us solely in the afterlife, but unlike the Abrahamic Gods, does not tell anyone what the rules by which God keeps score happen to be.
On the other hand, it would include the Star Wars saga’s mitcholorians, or some supernatural ancient astronauts who brought humanity to a next stage of consciousness and influenced our evolution, even if these being themselves have an evolutionary history of their own (a la Arthus C. Clark’s “2001”). It also permits gods of less than infinite power who are not “omnipotent” or “omniscient” (such as the Greek pantheon, and even the Judeo-Christian God in Genesis who sometimes lacks knowledge of what the humans are up to until he pays attention and discovers their acts), cruel gods who are not “omnibenevolent” (e.g. Satan or the Zoroastrian force of evil), or divine forces who seek balance rather than good (e.g. Taoist conceptions of the divine).
Under this conception of God, we can reason directly that none of the known inviolate laws of nature have any apparent moral purpose or agenda for human events, at least on their face. They may, as an anthropomorphic principles, does, make it possible for human beings to exist, but the have no preference for good or evil or anything else we do in human affairs; they are nihilist.
Thus, for this conception of Gods, we must assume that God is a “god of the gaps” who is very shy and acts only through an esquisitely balanced manipulation of random quantum events, and that such a god would be particularly invisible in quantum events in laboratories or distant stars because in such events there is no moral purpose for God to manipulate.
@AJKamper #56:
Actually, I admire your critique and it is well thought out. I admit what you are saying is related to where I am coming from, and I admit the last leap of your person #1 is probably too far. I guess one question is: what does it mean for laws to be rational etc… First I need to define that and then I need to ask if rational things need rational causes.
I would say they are rational in that all the laws can be stated using elegant logical constructs. Logical laws, the kind of laws that rational minds like to work with, seem to be at the heart of every physical process.
*I* would naively imagine that the only laws that would come from a non-rational source would be ones that are non-rational: true chaos, not ones well described be the kind of logic rational minds jive well with.
I admit this is just a *guess*, but I have a hard time seeing that this is a less-intelligent guess as science so far has told us nothing about where the laws came from in the first place.
I believe Sean and many other’s position is they come from nowhere and don’t have reasons for being the way they are. I think this is a very acceptable position to take, but I think, given what we *know* thus far (which is next to nothing concerning their origin), it is still also only a guess.
reading some of the comments has helped me form up what i wanted to say in the first place. “the universe doesn’t ‘need’ anything. it is complete whether anyone in it ever SAYS anything about GOD or anything else in it.” it is ‘us’ that ned to have or not have a GOD mentioned. the basic answer from my standpoint is NO, the universe doesn’t need GOD to be viable as is. we might!
@#59, Chase,
How does the Conservation of Energy lead to your Christian doctrines? You wrote, “But as a firm believer in God, I find everything that I know to be true to be tethered to that principle.” Christianity is a complex set of doctrines, how do you logically justify getting a loving, just, incorporeal, omniscient, personal, jealous, omnipotent God from the Conservation of Energy? How does that lead to a Virgin Birth, miracles, the accuracy of the New Testament, Heaven, Hell, the Trinity, or Jesus’ divinity?
I used to be a conservative evangelical Christian, but I never would have said even then that the conservation of energy was evidence for God’s existence. I could just as easily use the conservation of energy to “prove” any number of supernatural suppositions for which there are no evidence. The conservation of energy in no way leads to the idea of the supernatural, much less a personal god. As a physician I’m sure you understand that it isn’t very helpful to use a mystery to explain a mystery. You wouldn’t say “I don’t understand these symptoms, therefore that is evidence for a supernatural cause of this disease.” In the same way saying “I don’t know how we got here or why energy is conserved, therefore the Christian God” is equally illogical.
this post is directed against the “God” or against the men of “God” ??…..
FmsRse12 #68,
I’d guess that this post isn’t directed against God, but toward people who believe in him/her/it. It would be highly ironic if an atheist was addressing his post to a god, even if god were real I doubt it would read blogs (especially if it was an omniscient god)!
Does the universe need “God”? I guess the first step is to define “God”. Defining “God” as an explanation for observed but unexplained phenomena (god of the gaps) is a proven loser. “God” as a creator but not intervener(Deism) is still an open question unless cosmological theories like eternal inflation or cyclic universes can be tested and affirmed. “God” as the purpose or meaning for the existence of the universe (why is there something rather than nothing)should endure unless a testable “theory of everything” (not the multiverse theory of anything)comes along.
I like Hugo de Garis’ ideas on this subject (see http://www.kurzweilai.net/from-cosmism-to-deism ). He points out that while theism (belief in a god who cares about humans) is absurd in view of the evidence, deism (belief in an indifferent creator of the universe) is quite plausible scientifically. As Alan Guth has demonstrated with a mathematical model, creating a baby universe may be physically possible, and as our machines become super-intelligent and tend toward godhood they might be able to actually create such universes. So the idea that we are living inside such a universe created by a super-intelligent deity doesn’t seem so far-fetched, and in this model the universe *does* need God. Anyway, I just wanted to add this very interesting idea to the conversation!
I think you could strengthen the paragraph pointing out that “God did it” doesn’t really help us answer our questions. Also I think that while God’s role as creator of the universe might be important to religious people, what they really care about is the idea that they can have a personal relationship with God. Science absolutely paints a picture of the world in which that is impossible.
@51,
Completely ignoring the question of “why” just because it is hard to answer scientifically (which is exactly what that “explanation” suggests) is so unlike a scientist. Scientists seek out the hard to answer questions. As such, “why” is a valid question. Science is just poorly constructed to answer it. Science does answer how, and you are correct (as I have stated), carefully answering “how” does effectively cover-up for the fact that you never really answered “why”.
“Why” is a valid question. I have asked Sean to answer me (as the resident Guru on this particular thread — you seem to be an associate Guru in this space); “Why is the sky blue?”
I would like science to tell me. IF science can answer that, then science will have successfully squeezed God out of the Universe.
You have tried to refute my argument without addressing what I have pointed out; that Sean’s own test of validity dooms BOTH religion and science because at this time in our lives, both are failing miserably in the realm of predicting the nature of the next discovered phenomena.
For scientists (I am a professional Computer Scientist and an amateur astrologer), this is a glorious period of time to be alive because I know there are plenty of unknowns for me to try to discover. But, I find cosmology is just continually coming up short for providing answers.
The very next discovered heavenly body or phenomena, of whatever type, will cause us to once again cast aside a large percentage of our “understanding” as to the nature of the Universe, if not cause us to completely abandon everything we “know” and start all over again. String theory? The Multi-verse? 18-dimensions? Bubble theory? What else is out there?
I am excited, but I don’t allow my scientific enthusiasm to over-think the role of science in the lives of most people. Or my life.
Maybe you can tell me, “why is the sky blue?”
You inferred that the question “why” is a tool used by those who buck authority. I do not disagree. I also have a distrust, on an abstract level, of authority. Maybe, as you say, that is why I want to know, “why”. However, motive on the part of the inquirer does not automatically invalidate the question.
So, I ask my professor how the sky is blue, then I ask my pastor why the sky is blue, and I come away with a complete understanding. I have therefor answered, “how does God make the sky blue?”
A true scientist abandons no questions.
BTW, I am in agreement with #59 (Chase), that the Conservation of Energy (contrived zero sum energy “theory” notwithstanding), does point to fact that science has very finite boundaries when it comes to explaining everything. Our laws of physics say absolutely nothing at all about what there was before the big bang, nor after the big crunch, or the eventual darkening of the Universe (which outcome there will be ultimately be dependent on the nature and amount of Dark Matter — which itself is still unknown).
Science fails miserably in that regard.
The fact remains; the very same test Sean uses to bash Christianity also sufficiently bashes Science. Either his test is valid, and both Christianity and Science are too deeply flawed, and therefore the Universe “needs” neither, or his test is itself invalid.
Once again, Sean, Sphere Coupler, “Why is the sky blue?”
The point of my diatribe is that even if everything that both you and Sean have asserted are true, it still does not necessarily lead to answering the question of this thread in the negative, nor does it lead to a disproving the existence of God.
–Robert
I don’t think your definition of god is terse at all. Yes, it uses few words, however each of the words by itself comes loaded with a lot of hidden meaning and little in the way of an actual definition.
Is omnipotence only the ability to affect the universe created in any way he pleases or also the ability to alter his own being how he chooses? If an omnipotent being arises in one possible universe, does omnipotence include the ability to see and alter other universes, making the existence of an omnipotent being necessary in all universes, if you allow for the possibility?
All the properties you assign to god seem to be paradoxical in nature.
Bivins #73;
Sorry to disappoint but I have only commented on this blog a couple of times and in that respect I hardly could be considered “an associate Guru in this space”.
The sky used to be appear bluer back in the sixties before air traffic increased to what it is today. For three days after the incident of 911, aircraft did not fly over the continental US and the pan evaporation rate increased and the troposphere even smelled a lot cleaner and the sky was bluer, but you really had to pay attention and not be so involved in one’s small world.
The answer for why is the sky blue is answered by asking the how question first and to help you understand you must first be open to learning, and if you are, then the following site does a fair job of explanation…
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html
The short answer is Rayleigh scattering.
Bivens, I’m not here to prove or disprove your belief in a god, that is your personal choice, Personally I have been down both roads and Personally have found them both lacking, therefore I am, as of today neither atheist nor theist because the question, (Is there a god) is irrelevant to me.
I am not saying that the belief in a god is irrelevant to some and to me in the past, I am just saying that at this stage in my life the question is irrelevant to me…Personally. Sure others belief in a god can affect me such as discrimination from believers and discrimination from non-believers although atheist tend to discriminate less due to the close proximity of thought patterns derived from abstinence of addressing the question.
I really don’t think any scientist is in the position to disprove a god, nor do I think any theologist is in the position to prove our existance from the act of a god. By whatever means that you have before you, it is up to you to decide, yet that decision is a personal one and will define you, not the world veiw of the person standing next to you.