|
A new paradigm for cosmology – and for theology?
[A personal response occasioned by Simon Singh’s, Big Bang: the most important scientific discovery of all time, and why you should know about it. Part of my response to Singh’s book was to read also Martin Rees’ Just Six Numbers, which I learnt of through Singh.]
We are the first generation actually to know how all things came to be! Much of what in earlier generations was a matter of conjecture, a mystery and so of faith is now a matter of knowledge. It is only in our lifetime, indeed only in the last twenty years, that scientists have unraveled the way in which all things have come into being. The “theory” of the “Big Bang” has been established as providing an accurate model of the whole of creation, from the moment of its inception to the present day. Nor is it realistic to speak of a time before the Big Bang: for the Big Bang marks the beginning of both time and space, there was nothing before it nor anything outside of it. Simon Singh’s book, Big Bang: has brought this home to me. It has enabled me to understand at least something more of the theory and how it developed in the scientific community, mainly through insights gained during the latter part of the 20th Century. He explains that the proving of the “theory” required a “paradigm shift” in the minds of all scientists, a shift that was difficult for many of them to make and fully enter into. It required a change in the fundamental way they understood the whole of cosmology and of everything that flowed from it. The theory shows the whole of creation as one seamless process from the moment of its inception to today, one process ever expanding into tomorrow. It is perhaps important to note that “Big Bang” was originally coined by Fred Hoyle as a derogatory name for a theory with which he did not at that time agree and that the suggestion of an explosion which it conjures up is not an accurate image of what is signified by the model. So Rees says, The often used analogy with an explosion is misleading inasmuch as it conveys the image that the Big Bang was triggered at some particular centre. But as far as we can tell, any observer – … even on the galaxies remotest from us – would see the same pattern of expansion. The universe may once have been squeezed to a single point, but everyone had an equal claim to have started from that point; we can’t identify the origin of the expansion with any particular location in our present universe. It is also incorrect to think of the high pressure in the early universe ‘driving’ the expansion. Explosions are caused by unbalanced pressure; … But in the early universe the pressure was the same everywhere: there was no edge, no ‘empty’ region outside. (The Six Numbers, page 67)
In his Epilogue, Simon Singh writes of both the enormous strength of the model and the “problems” remaining to be “solved”. Though the theory “is backed up with concrete evidence” and covers most of the matters required for an understanding of the evolving process of “creation”, there are several outstanding issues that require much more work to resolve. Rees is much more expansive about these matters requiring much further work to resolve. Singh mentions, e.g. that though “we know the galaxies were seeded by variations in density that existed in the universe roughly 300,000 years after the Big Bang”, we do not know “what was responsible for these variations.” “Guth’s inflation theory” may account for it, but “is still in the workshop.” Another considerable mystery concerns the presence of “dark matter” and “dark energy”. “As yet, there are only vague clues to the nature and amount of dark matter in the universe:” but an illustration on page 482 explains the WMAP team “estimated that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, to within an error of just 0.2 billion years. They also calculated that the universe is 23% dark matter, 73% dark energy, and 4% ordinary matter.” In other words, we know and at present can only know, about 4 % of all there is in the universe we inhabit. “With a momentary violent period of inflation, peculiar dark matter and weird dark energy, the Big Bang universe of the twenty-first century is a strange place indeed. … J.B.S.Haldane had tremendous insight when he wrote in 1937: 'My suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.’” (p.481) “Some cosmologists have decided to delve into the philosophical implications of the Big Bang model. For example, the model describes how the universe started from a hot, dense, primordial soup and then evolved into the vast array of galaxies, stars, planets and life forms that exist today – was this inevitable, or could the universe have been different? Martin Rees addresses this issue in his book Just Six Numbers. In it he explains how the structure of the universe depends on just six parameters, such as the strength of gravity.” Each of these parameters is absolutely crucial to the universe having developed as it did – or even at all. “Changing any of them,” even by a very slim margin, “would have severely affected the evolution of the universe. … Had they been even slightly different from the values we measure, then the universe could easily have been sterile, or could have destroyed itself as soon as it was born. “Consequently, it seems that these six numbers have been tuned for life. It is as though the six dials that dictated the evolution of the universe had been carefully set in order to create the conditions necessary for us to exist. The eminent physicist Freeman Dyson wrote: ‘The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.’”
Singh then returns to “the anthropic principle” which “states that any cosmological theory must take into account the fact that the universe has evolved to contain us.”… It seems to defy the odds that the six numbers that characterise the universe have very special values that allow life to flourish. So do we ignore this and just count ourselves extremely lucky, or do we look for special meaning in our extraordinary good fortune? According to the extreme version of the anthropic principle, the fine tuning of the universe which has allowed life to evolve is indicative of a tuner. … [But] an alternative view is that our universe is part of a multiverse. … There could be many other separate and isolated universes, each defined by its own set of six numbers. … This question - was our universe designed for life or is it the lucky universe in a generally unlucky multiverse? – is at the very edge of scientific speculation. … The only question which surpasses it in metaphysical magnitude is the biggest question of all: what came before the Big Bang? Singularity, an unphysical state, is one answer: but most consider the question itself invalid. The Big Bang gave rise not only to matter but also to time and space. “Time did not exist before the Big Bang, and it is therefore impossible to use the phrase ‘before the Big Bang’ in any meaningful way.” It’s like asking, What’s north of the North Pole?
After reading all this and pondering it a little … It has finally surely dispelled the notion that there is any room for a “God” who somehow acts from outside or upon the system – all is enveloped in the one process. Nor will a “God of the gaps”, an explanation for the things we do not yet understand, any longer suffice, for there are no longer any significant gaps. Is there then any place for what has traditionally been known as faith? Is there anything to have “faith” in? I believe there is – but it requires a paradigm shift of no less dimension and difficulty for theologians as that which was required by scientists. The new cosmology necessitates a paradigm shift for theology. I do not suggest, nor do I consider it in any sense “reasonable” to suggest the six numbers were supplied, invented or otherwise provided by “God”! That would in any case reduce “God” to the role of providing only such an initiatory function and exclude the notion from all subsequent events, which are adequately explained without reference to “him”. Rather, we must begin with what we now know to be the case. Before I embark on my own ideas about the significance of the numbers, it is important to acknowledge what Rees himself made of them. These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars, and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the ‘right’ combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. (page 4)
Rees considers the theory of our own being just one universe in a series comprising a multiverse is the best explanation for the presence of the numbers. We just happen to inhabit one in which the originating numbers were right. He has another note toward the end of his book I found very interesting. Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what ‘breathes fire’ into the equations, and actualizes them in a real cosmos. The fundamental question of ‘Why there is something rather than nothing?’ remains the province of philosophers. And even they may be wiser to respond, with Ludwig Wittgenstein, that ‘Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent.” (page 131) Martin Rees concludes his book: A few basic physical laws set the ‘rules’; our emergence from a simple Big Bang was sensitive to six ‘cosmic numbers’. Had these numbers not been well tuned, the gradual unfolding of layer upon layer of complexity would have been quenched. Are there an infinity of other universes that are ‘badly tuned’ and therefore sterile? Is our universe an ‘oasis’ in a multiverse? Or should we seek other reasons for the providential values of our six numbers?
Perhaps there is no “Why?” Perhaps creation simply is, and we have to learn simply to live with that is-ness. It may be wiser to accept Wittgenstein’s warning - but I want to go on. Human reason is necessarily limited in its capacity to deal with that which is, certainly presently if not ultimately, “beyond our ken” – but some at least of us are not satisfied with leaving it at that. What ‘breathes fire’ into the equations, causes “creation” to occur at all? Those six numbers: “It seems to defy the odds”, that they came about by “chance”. Rees certainly does not think so. Surely we may properly ask, What is required to supply those Six Numbers? We can only answer through the use of human analogy – but it is important that we try to do so. It seems to me at least four things are required:
Each of these requires an extensive essay in itself – but to go on. The “numbers” then suggest that, from the beginning, there was and remains a kind of “rationality”, that the whole has built into it some fundamental realities which make it possible. “Being Itself”, from the beginning has an essential dimension built into it which makes “creation” possible. “The dials were set.” Further, Singh suggests the “anthropic principle” must be taken into account in giving any adequate theory about the origin of all that is. It seems to me to imply a teleological principle, that from the beginning the process seems to have been guided by, been imbued with, thought for the end. I do not want to imply by this the traditional idea of God, or God’s will. Rather it seems to be that as Being Itself, the primordial stuff of creation itself, manifests Itself in created being, there is within it this teleological principle, a reaching, striving forward, ever transcending yet incorporating what is past, expanding into tomorrow. As the Big Bang occurred, in the first nanosecond of time the numbers “kicked in” to control the process so that the whole of creation as we know became possible. It is about here that we cross the boundary between knowledge and faith. That the “numbers” exist, that the forces they describe are essential to the whole process of creation that could not have proceeded without them, is a matter beyond doubt. That they imply, as I am suggesting, the presence of some kind of super-intelligence is, at least at present, a matter of faith. It has however become a thoroughly “reasonable” and I find persuasive faith, based on the argument I have outlined. And, thanks to the scientific discoveries of the 1990s that boundary, between knowledge and faith has become paper thin, to the point of transparency: how else can we explain the numbers? We now have access to knowledge never before available to humankind, and it points to the reality of a presence within. That that presence is somehow personal, that it bears all the marks of all we mean by person-hood, and that it is benign and continues to interact with creation is still an assertion of faith, for which as ever, there is no certain evidence – except the reality of creation itself, and the appearance within it of humankind. Faith in such a reality however, seems far more reasonable than ever before. This, a new belief in Being Itself, is the paradigm shift I feel that I am called to, am striving to make. Being Itself, the Ground of all being, has these characteristics: Supreme Intelligence, so far beyond our comprehension as to inspire awe; an Awareness of Itself and the possibility of all that comes to be; a Motivation to accomplish creation itself; and the Power to bring it all to pass. The process could and can only proceed because the Six are present within it, “guiding” urging it ever forward, initiating. It does however require a real and deep paradigm shift. It is not just a matter of substituting the word Being for God and carrying on as usual! It is beginning again from the beginning, learning all over again to be open, quiet, attentive and receptive, willing to be confronted by the new, filled with awe all over again. In his small book, The Religion of Being, Don Cupitt warns that it is exceedingly difficult to make such a shift. We do not, cannot make the transition from God to Being because of the structures we have built around the concept of God as a Being. All the monotheistic religions currently think of God as a Being, a separate entity with existence outside of creation, a Being to be addressed, whose “attitude” toward us and the world may possibly be changed by our activity, a Being as it were over-against us. Being, Be(come)ing cannot be thought, but it can be surfed in meditation. You should learn to surf it. … After the death of God, Being does not and cannot just come flooding back straight away. … No: we must simply wait patiently for Being in the darkness of the world-midnight, attentive and perceptive [not even] trying to specify too clearly just what it is that we are waiting . … We are waiting - but we cannot quite know what it is that we wait for, nor how we will recognize it when it comes. … Being (poetically speaking) has its own agenda: its own history, its hour, not under our control. (p. 20) In the new paradigm there is no “God” who in any sense acts on creation from outside. The only sense of “God” there can be is of an active presence within the whole of creation. There is no God out there, standing as it were over and against us: there is only a Spirit constantly at work within us striving to bring perfection a work already begun. We, so aware of the present, knowing only our own brief history which encompasses a mere million years or so of the 13.7 billion years creation has taken to get to today, think the process is static, has reached a pinnacle that is “permanent”. But such is not the case. It is, even now, moving steadily forward into the next phase of the creative process and we are at best only ever dimly aware of the true totality of what is a proceeding movement of that “Spirit”, of Being Itself in bringing into being all that was, and is, and is to come. “In the beginning was the Logos …” “Faith” in this new age, as in fact it has always been, is not belief in a set of human ideas, beliefs which can change with the winds of change. Faith in its true sense, describes the trust we have in Being Itself, that it is good, can be trusted, is working ever for good, even in the face of dreadful things that may happen to us. It is trust in an ultimate sense that life itself is good, because Being Itself, of which our life is manifestation, is good. Such faith assures us life is worth living, that we can go on regardless of present turmoil, even suffering and the threat of death. And even as I begin my quest I find I am not really alone! For I begin to see that ever since the human species emerged, it is this “Spirit”, of Being Itself that men and woman have truly sought, believe they have found, or, more accurately, that they have been encountered by. Though it has been called by many names it is Being Itself who has been the “object” of our quest into the origin and meaning of all things. Further, I find some of the biblical insights, released from a sterile literalism and properly understood, can be seen as an attempt of many in the past to put into words their sense of encounter with Being Itself. They of course express it in their own ways and according to the thought forms available to them. They, like we, can only use analogy, metaphor and symbol to build myths to describe what their experiences were like to them. Abraham setting out from Ur and Moses from Egypt, mythic stories of men inspired by a vision setting out to build new communities. Jacob and his dream that helps him to catch the vision: “How awe-full this place is. It is the House of God and I did not know it.” It is the voice that called Samuel, the Word Isaiah and Jeremiah heard in their hearts and sought to declare. It is the Spirit that caught up the man Jesus, “anointed” him so that he became for those who knew and loved him, “the Son of God”. It is the spirit that pervaded the early church, enabling the followers of Jesus as the Christ, model of the New Being, to accomplish great things, establishing another new community. “Being Itself, Be(come)ing.” We cannot describe, define, Being, only see and describe what It has done and, as much as we are able, seek to become partners in what It is continuing to do. Moreover, in the myth of Moses, the name by which “God” says he is to be called is YHWH. It is, I understand part of the verb “to be”, and in the Authorized Version as in others rendered simply, “I AM”. But this is not its strict meaning. It is apparently an unusual use of the root of the verb “to be”, not otherwise known. It is as if the author(s) were struggling to find a word to give expression to their sense of “Being”, though they had no word for the concept at the time. It can then surely be understood as “Being Itself”, a use of the verb as a noun, very similar to Cupitt’s “Be-ing” and/or “Be(come)ing”. Men and women of faith down all the years of human history have sought to testify to this one vision of Being Itself and of the ways in which It has encountered them. I do not proffer this “Moses myth” as “a proof text from the Bible” but suggest only that it shows that others down the ages of human history have struggled to put the concept into words. And, as the Second Commandments warns, it is a serious thing to Name God or to invoke “Him”: for the naming implies a knowledge we do not posses, a control that is in itself blasphemous. It was for this reason that Judaism came not to use the sacred name, YHWH, but only to refer to him obliquely as Adonai, “the Lord”. Maori had a similar custom: they had a supreme Being, Eo, but his mana was such that he was never referred to by name, +lest by so doing his wrath might be incurred. The urgent human desire to know, an insistence on knowing, is often a mask for either a deep insecurity in the face of uncertainty, or of a hidden desire to control. In either case it is the opposite of real faith. We must learn afresh (with Elijah) that a fleeting glance is as much as we shall ever have, and then only of “the back-side of God” after he has already passed. And “the still small voice” of the English translations of a Hebraism which I understand more properly means “a pregnant silence” is as much as we can ever have. It is a silence from which we must draw our own conclusion, never a forced or overpowering Presence giving certainty, but rather a hint of a reality about which we can only make tentative assertions which we hold with due humility and a measure of “doubt”. Perhaps this is why Jesus, consummate teacher about such things was content only, and insistent only, to say, “The kingdom of heaven is like …” a story, from which you must draw your own conclusions. Absolute certainty could only come from absolute knowledge – and to pretend we have that of God is not ultimate faith but absolute blasphemy. It is only now, now most of the uncertainty about our origins has been cleared away, that we can see this more accurately and clearly. The Spirit of Being Itself, is the spirit that flows through all creation, through all life, and human life in particular, the source of all our inspiration, not only of “religious people” but of all human endeavour, all the arts and sciences perhaps showing it most clearly, but present in every human person. The urge to create and pro-create, bringing healing and health when we are threatened by disease, that struggles within us to draw us forward to reach our potential, to strive, to endure, to attain, the power that drives the mountaineer onward, the scientist to discover … all these and much more, are the work of the one Spirit of Being Itself. The whole of creation is one great manifestation of Being Itself, ever expanding, becoming ever more complex and diverse as it expands into a tomorrow as yet unknown. It is this “new” but at the same time “old” understanding and faith we must learn to affirm. There is no tribal deity, favouring one at the expense of all others, no “chosen people” who are in any sense God’s favourites. We are, all human beings, children of “the One God and Father of us all”, Being Itself, Be(come)ing becoming manifest in creation, yet ever moving forward, expanding into tomorrow. To adapt another Biblical example: “I can assure you my brothers and sisters, I am far from thinking I have already attained! All I can say is that I forget the past and strain ahead for what is still to come!” (Paul in Phillipians 3, 13.) I t seems to me, virtually all the founders of the great religions, together with all those who have pondered these things, seem to suggest it is not so much a matter of finding “the centre” (or whatever they call it), of discovering Being Itself for themselves, but rather a matter of being encountered by that which they have sought or “who” on its own initiative has encountered them. And of course, it is ultimately because I believe I have been encountered by that same Spirit, “heard” that “voice” that “spoke" to Abram and Isaac, Sarah and Jacob, Isaiah, Jeremiah and all the prophets, was abundantly present in Jesus of Nazareth, as in Mohammed, Ghandi and Mandella, and a vast number of other men and women who have been open to, inspired by It, and have offered myself to It’s service in response to It’s call … it is because of all this that I now believe in, trust It. It was mediated to me first through my parents and then on down the years by other faithful people. I believe It “speaks” and “works” within me, in and through my unconscious and sub-conscious mind, in subtle ways “guides”, inspires and “reveals” Itself to me. Being Itself, beyond my understanding, is never-the-less present within me as I believe in all. Since Freud, we must, of course, ever be conscious, that much of what has been, and continues to be, passed off as religious, is ego-centric, self seeking, “wish fulfillment”, a longing for a kindly “father figure”, favouring me, my family, my tribe, my nation, etc. None of these is appropriate in a “Religion of Being”. But for many of those who have searched diligently, down the ages and in different religious traditions, what they have found has proved not so much to be a fulfillment of their desires as an encounter with Another, who, as he strides ahead into the realities of human existence, especially its darker places, calls back, “Follow me!”
“A few basic laws set the rules [for our existence]: our emergence … was sensitive to just six cosmic numbers. Had these numbers not been ‘well tuned’, the gradual unfolding of layer upon layer of complexity would have been quenched. Is our entire universe a chance oasis … or should we seek other reasons for the providential values of our six numbers?”
P.S. It is "A Work in Progress" and already I want to add a first Post Script! I have spoken in my paper of "Motivation": the specific "revelation" (a word in religious language to signify a human inspiration felt to be "given" from beyond the self, a gift from Being Itself to human minds) of Christianity is that that motivation is "love". This is the specific insight and message of the man Jesus of Nazareth: and though those who claim to be his followers have not always been faithful to his vision, that, and that alone, is the central core of the Christian "Good News". There is no "proof" of this (as yet!): it is a revelation, an insight into the nature of Being Itself. Much human experience may seem to confound it: but the central core of a Christian faith is that Being Itself is love, and that ultimately this "deep force" overcomes all.
http://www.simonsingh.com/Big_Bang.html Simon Singh writes about his book
Martin Rees: Just Six Numbers http://plus.maths.org/issue26/reviews/book2/
|