Have You Heard The One About The Bouncing Universe?
Have You Heard The One About The Bouncing Universe?
This year of 2009 sees the bi-centenary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of his “On the Origin of the Species”. Science and theology are often depicted as being at war: indeed, the Church does not always appear in a very constructive light in this regard – thoughts of the treatment of Galileo do nothing for the credibility of its claim for fair and objective reason. However this is not altogether justified, as many scientists and mathematicians have contributed to religious thought and speculation; whilst architects, musicians and other artists have been inspired by their rationality and understanding to add considerably to the quality of our life today. So, need it always be this way? Do not the intellect and the human character, given free rein together, provide evidence of what people are really capable? Should not science return the favour of respect afforded by religion to genuinely constructive wondering and wonderment?
Tolerance is hard enough when differences are obvious and clear-cut. But life isn’t always straightforwardly black or white, either/or, is it? But often there is common ground, where lies truth and optimum resolution, however inconvenient or uncomfortable the compromise.
In the Inky Fingers of the Christmas issue, I was sceptical of the utility and relevance of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) – in supposedly ascertaining the origin of the Universe – to the state of world affairs. However both science and the law provide examples of proper debate: honest open mindgames in a kind of boxing match with gloves on – “red and blue corners” with “Queensberry Rules” or rules of engagement. Thus the classical thesis/antithesis/synthesis results in a conclusion from which people can move on: the truth is out in the open, knowledge and justice impartially evaluated and apportioned. All relevant to the specific issues raised – so far as humanly possible in the circumstances.
But it does not always end there – new facts may become known, the significance of some evidence may become more apparent, the precedent set may not be entirely helpful or relevant. Ironically the LHC issue referred to above points us to another dimension of the quality and form of the ongoing debate about our cosmological origins – “Steady State” or “Big Bang”. In fact, such scientific thought points to another interpretation: I love this – either or neither might be right! Only a partial picture of what happened – so far as we can tell. In a debate that has gone on for some years, summarised in a recent edition of New Scientist (December 2008), the concept of Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) focuses on the inability of indivisible quanta of gravity and matter to permit either an infinitely compressible gravity (or matter) to singularity or an infinitely expanding Universe. One of the shortcomings of the Theory of Relativity is that it could not sustain the concepts of such extremes: so the Universe may have been infinitely expanding and collapsing (or vice versa – and I love that chicken-or-the-egg scenario too!).
And yet two essential issues persist:- (a)The original question still remains – how did IT start? What existed before the Steady State, or what happened to make a Big Bang?; and (b)Either way, or whatever happened, is relevant to the question WHY? What exactly was the original First Cause of Creation of ancient and modern thought? Do we have the capacity to appreciate it in all its wonder? Even the atheist is uncomfortably thrown against this concept of first cause – if there is no God, how did we get here at all, by whatever circuitous route? But the believer can marvel at the wonder of God’s power, wisdom and love which culminated, but did not end, on the Cross. The wonder of God indeed, as theologian Karl Barth described it.
And so we come back to tolerance. Certainly, standards of truth and justice are necessary for the promotion of wholesale peace and good order. The outcomes of our contemplations and debates are ours, but how sure can we be that they are right and fitting to God’s will – especially if someone else is equally sincerely seeking these standards from another direction? Surely it is our response to evil and suffering that make us what we are and can be in relation to a loving God and – His other creatures – each other. Any other consideration, however absorbing, has to be insignificant in comparison to this. This has to be the real question and I would suggest that, to be healthy and responsible, it has to be addressed with total transparency of honesty. THAT makes us worthy of the sacrifice of the Father and the submission, even to death, of the Son: I suggest that is a matter to bear in mind when we address the greatest joyous, yet poignant, festival of Christendom – Easter.
In the course of what I call “cross-fertilisation”, I read in Illogan’s church magazine “The Link” that the British Humanist Association has responded to years of advertising on London buses of Alpha Courses with one of its own – “There’s probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life.” This has been underwritten by £5,500 from the once seemingly ubiquitous Prof. Richard Dawkins, who is reported to have claimed “thinking is anathema to religion”. Actually some of the greatest contributions to religious thought have been made by notable scientists and mathematicians (eg Newton, Leibniz, etc) and some of the greatest debates have been held by the early Church Fathers and subsequently in dispelling heresy and formulating a consistency in our creeds and modern beliefs, not forgetting the Synod of Whitby (about Easter in the first instance) in 664 C.E. I am delighted to note that this BHA move is welcomed as a challenge rather than a threat by several church groups, including think tank Theos – “stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity”. Genuine tolerance is not an “anything goes” free-for-all – it is respect for other people’s rights and deeply-held beliefs, and what we should be entitled to expect in our own contemplations. It is part of the road to everyone’s “faith seeking understanding”, as St. Anselm put it – a great thinker by any standard. I hope we never stop wondering: that is the wonder of humanity.
For the Church of England website addressing Darwin’s anniversaries, see www.cofe.anglican.org/darwin.