The heavens declare the glory of God…(Psalm 19:1).
I’ve decided that the next time someone tells me that they don’t believe in God I am going to ask a simple question: “Why?” My hunch is that most people who hold to the atheist or agnostic positions don’t have a very good answer. I guess someone might say something like, “I believe science has shown us that God is not necessary.” If that is their response, they are probably stuck in the 60’s and 70’s when it comes to the relationship between science and faith.
Are you familiar with the “Anthropic Principle”? My guess would be that 90 to 95% of the American population are not. It is a scientific principle that was given this name in 1973 when British astrophysicist Brandon Carter introduced it in a paper he read at the symposium honoring the 500th anniversary of the birth of Copernicus. Ironically, I believe we could trace the split between science and religion to about the same date (the time of Copernicus).
If you are not familiar with Copernicus, he was the first person to publicly put forth the idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and that rather than the Sun orbiting the Earth, it was actually the Earth that orbited the Sun. He waited till shortly before his death to announce his findings and as a result he did not have to face the wrath of the Catholic Church which considered this theory heresy. Galileo was not quite as lucky about seventy-five years later when he was called before the Inquisition with the result that he spent the rest of his life under house arrest.
Of course, the Church was wrong, due to faulty exposition of the Bible, and Copernicus and Galileo were correct. But let me get back to Brandon Carter. In a scientific environment where the concept of a random universe without a Creator prevailed, Carter introduced the idea that when the narrow range of physical constants existing in the universe that made complex life possible were subjected to rigorous mathematical and statistical analysis it would appear that the probability that creation was random was so remote that it appeared that the universe had actually been “fine tuned” for complex life. He called it the “Anthropic Principle.” How many men and women in the Western World today do you think have ever been exposed to this information?
In 2010, the former president of Gonzaga University, Robert Spitzer, published a book titled “New Proofs for the Existence of God”. The subtitle is “Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy”. Taking the work of numerous modern physicists and cosmologists, the book looks at the implications of both the Big Bang Theory (the most current version called “The New Big Bang Theory) and the much more developed Anthropic Principle to reach what he would call a “rational and reasonable” reason to believe that science actually points to a super-intellect with unfathomable power creating the universe, and creating it with the exact set of “constants” necessary for complex life (as in human life) to exist. He is quick to point out that “proof” of God’s existence cannot be arrived at with the scientific method, but a high degree of probability of the existence of God, based on the facts of modern science, can be reached in a rational and reasonable way.
Spitzer also explores the contemporary explanations of those who do not read the evidence this way. The two most prominent refutations of the idea of the necessity of a beginning to the universe, and the design of the universe being a product of super-intellect, are the Multiple Universe theory, held by such scientists as Stephen Hawking, and multiple bounce theory of the creation of the universe. The latter postulates that there have been multiple “big bangs” stretching back to infinity, and the former hypothesizes that there are infinite multiple universes, therefore, it was inevitable that in one of those universes the exact conditions necessary for complex life would exist. Spitzer is able to approach these positions from the modern scientific data that would suggest the implausibility of either of these ideas. My reading simply led me to the conclusion that it takes more faith to buy into these theories than it does to believe in a super-intelligent Creator.
This Sunday I am teaching on the psalm from which today’s text is taken: Psalm 1. In words which C.S. Lewis claimed were some of the greatest poetry of all time, David writes, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky the work of his hands.” I’ve thought of how when David wrote these words, his understanding was limited to the knowledge and ability to observe of his time. He had no telescope. He knew nothing of what might lie beyond what he could see with the naked eye. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were not yet understood. And yet even with those limitations he could sense that something about the world declared the existence and glory of God. As I’ve pondered his words, I’ve thought about how in the last fifty or sixty years the scientific data both of the macrocosm and the microcosm have supported a shift from belief in a random universe, and humanity as product of random evolution, to a time in which the facts of modern cosmology and biology support a Designer behind both the creation of the universe and the creation of “language” as complex as DNA. Never before in human history have the heavens so declared the glory of God, and the work of his hands, as they do today. And yet most men and women in our world are completely oblivious to these things! And when asked why they don’t believe, they have either have no clue, or are stuck in scientific theory that is obsolete.
One final thought. Have you ever heard of the “Infinite Monkey Theorem”? It closely parallels the infinite multiple universe explanation of the universe. The theory holds that if you place a monkey in a room with a typewriter, and give him an infinite amount of time to hammer away, eventually he will produce the complete works of Shakespeare. If you flip the theory, you could say that the probability of a random mechanistic universe, and human beings existing as the result of random evolutionary processes are the same as placing a monkey in a room with a typewriter and the monkey producing Shakespeare. If you don’t believe in God, I’d ask you this: “Why?”
To hear all my thoughts on Psalm 19, check out the following website after Sunday: http://highlinecc.org/?page_id=196.