|
A great deal of attention have recently been given the so-called
"Anthropic Principle" (AP). As we have seen already,
had the universe as a whole been slightly different, the evolution
of life never have arisen in the first place! But does the apparent
"fine-tuning" of our universe mean that we can invoke
a divine Designer of the universe as a whole as the best explanation,
or can the fine-tuning more aptly be explained away scientifically?
For most scientists, then answer is simple: given inflationary
Big Bang cosmology or perhaps quantum cosmology, there may well
be many universes ("many worlds") with varying values
of the natural constants, even many of the laws of nature. If
this is so, we simply exist in the one which is consistent with
the eventual evolution of life. On the other hand, some writers
favor a design argument, arguing that ours is the only universe
and its fine-tuning must be explained by appeal to God. They see
the appeal to inflation or quantum cosmology as dubious since
these theories, especially quantum cosmology, are speculative
and difficult to test empirically. Thus for cosmologist George
Ellis and theologian Nancey Murphy, the fact that creatures capable
of moral agency such as us have evolved in the universe is evidence
that God designed the universe with the intention to create creatures
capable of virtue, compassion, and self-surrendering love. They
have thus made a major contribution to the Anthropic Principle
in their recent work on the "moral universe".
I appreciate the intention of arguments like these, for they
help us reconnect our human lives with the overall character of
the universe itself. Rather than see life in the universe as meaningless
and tragic, they suggest that life is a key to the meaning of
the universe, and they shed light on fundamental Christian convictions
about the love of God who creates and redeems the world. Still
I am hesitant to push the argument too far towards a design argument
for the existence of God. To me it seems that both
sides on this particular debate are precariously balanced and
open to rapid shifts in science, philosophy and theology.
For example, even if one starts with inflation to explain the
variation in the natural constants, a theist can still counter
that God designed the entire set of universes, or the laws of
nature which govern them all, etc. On the other hand let us suppose
that ours is the only universe. If one already believes in the
Biblical God, the close fit between the universe and the conditions
for the evolution of life illuminate one’s understanding
of God as the Creator ex nihilo of this universe.
However, if one attempts to start with the fine-tuning of the
universe and use it as a basis for an argument that God exists,
it raises several profound theological tangles - most of
which trace back to the Enlightenment critiques of religion such
as David Hume and apply to the ‘intelligent design’
arguments others are seeking to construct in the context of biological
evolution. For example, it clearly begs the question whether the
`Designer' one gets is what one wants: the Biblical God. In general,
however, I am very dubiousabout turning to scientific
data, instead of religious experience, tradition, and scripture,
for primary theological evidence for God.
Finally, like the "direct support" argument about
t=0, a too heavy reliance on the AP would seem to me to be basing
a specific theological claim (the existence of God as designer)
on a particular `fact' of science (the apparently fine-tuned features
of the universe).
Should we therefore abandon the Anthropic Principle as irrelevant
to theology and withdraw into a "two worlds" position?
I don’t believe we need to take this option, either. Instead
I suggest we reject both options: design and many world.
Instead, I believe we can learn a great deal theologically if
we start with belief in God the Creator and let the cosmological
fine-tuning shape our theological language about God as Creator
of both the world as a whole and all its parts. To see this, let
us focus on one of the natural constants, Planck's constant, and
study its relation to both the parts, and the whole structure,
of the universe.
Planck's constant is linked intimately to each part of the
universe through which life evolved. Quantum physics plays an
essential role in genetic variation which in turn drives biological
evolution. If the numerical value of Planck's constant were slightly
different, life could not have arisen via evolution on a planet
like ours. Thus Planck's constant is linked to the phenomenon
of life and sentience; it is thus a part of the contingency of
the biological processes of a universe that is filled with life
and a sign of life's dependence on the God who creates life through
biological evolution, including therein the role of quantum physics.
Planck's constant also contributes to the overall, physical
character of the universe as a whole. During the first fractions
of a second after the Big Bang the universe was governed by a
single fundamental interaction; the very early universe, being
microscopic, was a quantum phenomenon. Had the value of Planck's
constant been different than it is, the universe may never have
produced the right astrophysical and geological conditions for
biological life to ever get started. Without this value the physical
preconditions for evolution - cosmological production of helium,
generation of galaxies, stars, and planets, etc. - might never
have occurred. In this way the value of Planck's constant is essential
to the global, physical character of the universe.
Hence it may be, as Wolfhart Pannenberg asserts, that "the
universe as a whole and in all its parts is contingent."
But what we have discovered through science is that these
two philosophically distinct types of contingency are mutually
constrained empirically by the role Planck's constant plays
in each domain. Indeed Planck's constant, the common factor between
the contingency of the whole and the contingency of the parts,
connects them in a way which we could not have learned
from pure philosophical speculation. Thus to use the philosophical
tool of contingency properly in theology we must turn to science.
Our theological lesson must be this: when we speak of the contingency
of the world as part of what a theology of creation entails, we
must understand that the contingency of the universe as a whole
is intimately connected with the contingency of the universe at
each step in the process of evolution. It is not that the whole
determines the parts or vice versa; rather the whole and the parts
are co-determined by a single contingent fact, the value of Planck's
constant. It is here that we can more correctly locate the effect
of God's free, creative act.
If it is the case that the contingency of the universe as a
whole is directly tied to the contingency of the universe in each
part and process, then God's action in creating the universe through
each process is related to God's action in shaping the universe
as a whole; i.e., creatio ex nihilo is closely related
to creatio continua. In essence, the action through which
God creates the universe entails a dialectic of freedom and constraint.
There is a contingent, free element in nature, represented here
by the value of Planck's constant and the laws which contain it;
they could have been other than what they are. Yet this value
determines much of both the global and the microscopic features
of nature. This means that if we talk about God's action in creating
the world and human life in the context of the natural sciences
we should speak about a single free divine creation (the creation
of the value of Planck's constant) out of which emerged much of
the physical character of the universe at large as well as the
much of the biological character of evolution in time.
Granted that God might well be said to freely choose the values
of the fundamental constants, including Planck's constant. Within
this choice, however, the die is cast: God cannot independently
choose the role for quantum physics at both the cosmic and the
microscopic scales. God's freedom in choosing ex nihilo
the value of Planck's constant and the laws in which it occurs
has effects both globally and locally, shaping the meaning of
God's continuing creation throughout the domain of the cosmos.
God's choice of Planck's constant both allows for the
open character of the universe through which God can continually
act (creatio continua) and conditions the kind of
universe to be one which requires billions of years of evolutionary
struggle, suffering, and slow emergence before producing sentience
and spirit. (This would seem to offer new connections between
creation and redemption, even touching on the theological problems
of evil and theodicy.)
Thus even from this simple, preliminary example I believe we
can see that science both gives meaning to, and critically shapes
the meaning of, theological reflection on core assertions of Christian
faith, without pre-preempting their legitimate bases in
the religious experiences of the worshiping community.
It is not that the Anthropic Principle really serves as a basis
for a design argument or proof of the existence of God, nor that
it necessarily leads to a many-worlds argument that ignores religion.
Rather what I believe we have learned is that as we think theologically
about the universe and the emergence of life within it, science
contributes a vital clue about the relationship between what otherwise
seemed like very different domains of divine creativity: the vision
of God framing the universe as a whole and the hand of God articulating
its every inner fiber. If science can thus help us theologize
more faithfully and with new insight, it surely deserves our growing
attention.
Email
link | Printer-friendly | Feedback
| Contributed by: Dr. Robert Russell
|
