What Does Physics Teach Us About Theology?
Physics, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "the scientific study of matter and energy and the effect that each has on the other." That seems pretty straightforward, and it's hard to imagine that having any kind of conflict with the Christian faith. And yet, people like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, men trained and accomplished in the field of physics, seem to think that their scientific work enables them to make broad pronouncements about philosophical and theological issues. They claim that their understanding of the universe and its mathematical forms enables them to confidently say that there is no role or room for God.
But, there are also Christians who are accomplished physicists, like Father Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), Stephen M. Barr, and Dominique Lambert (all Catholics). These scientists see the implications of their work much differently than Hawking, Krauss, or DeGrasse Tyson.
What are the implications of physics for Christian faith? When it comes to the regular, everyday physics of Earth, there doesn't seem to be much overlap. But when we start thinking about theoretical physics or astrophysics, and especially things like the origins of the universe and the possibility of extraterrestrial life, there are some opportunities for theology and physics to inform one another. For instance, Lemaitre's "Big Bang Theory," or, as he called it, the "hypothesis of the primeval atom," tells us that the universe had a beginning, just as Genesis chapter 1 has proclaimed for a few thousand years.
Multiverse
Some physicists now say that the Big Bang may not have been the beginning after all. Based on mathematical models, they say that our universe could be one of many, and that it may have arisen from some kind of universe-making machine or process. This is called the Multiverse Theory. If it's true, it might change our feelings about the uniqueness of our universe, but it doesn't necessarily threaten the belief that God created everything that exists, out of nothing. Because no matter how many universes there might be, they are all part of one physical reality (even if it has multiple dimensions), and that reality itself, and the "universe-making machine" must have some ultimate cause (God).
It might seem that other universes would be wasteful or superfluous, evidence that God couldn’t get it right the first time. But we should consider that by that definition, most of our own universe is “wasted space” as well, because it is empty and not enjoyed by any human. Christians are free to believe that the undiscovered beauties of creation might be made for angels or other spiritual beings, or perhaps God simply delights in His own creative powers and loves to make things. He can do as He pleases, and we can’t really call a being with unlimited power, time, and resources “wasteful.”
Ultimately, the Multiverse theory is only a theory, and it cannot be proven physically, only (perhaps someday) mathematically. While it might be an interesting philosophical exercise to consider the ramifications of there being many universes, it’s a little premature for Christians to worry about it.
The Universe Created Itself?
Stephen Hawking drew attention for making statements like: "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." (The Grand Design, 2010, page 180) To those of us outside the world of theoretical physics, this sounds like nonsense. How can something that does not exist "create itself?" And if things can create themselves, why do burritos and Ferraris and puppies never create themselves from nothing?
Stephen M. Barr, a physicist at the University of Delaware, believes he has the answer ("Much Ado About "Nothing": Stephen Hawking and the Self-Creating Universe" First Things, September 10, 2010). He says that "the ideas propounded in Hawking's book constitute no threat whatever to the Jewish and Christian doctrine of Creation." He says that Hawking's "highly speculative" idea is based on "a plausible analogy with the experimentally observed and well-understood phenomenon of the quantum creation of particles." It has to do with the changing state of an already existing system. So, a universe "making itself" from nothing is really a mathematical description of a change of state.
Barr explains,
"For physicists (as opposed to theologians and metaphysicians) the concept of the universe does not refer to "all there is" or the "totality of things." It refers to a single, self-contained physical structure, comprising a "spacetime manifold" and particles and other things moving around in that spacetime."
The "no-universe state" as meant in these speculative scenarios is not nothing, it is a very definite something: it is one particular quantum state among many of an intricate rule-governed system."
Barr goes on to compare this state to a checking account; even if it has a zero (or negative) balance, it is still "something," part of a whole system of money and banking.
The universe "creating itself" out of nothing, therefore, is not what it sounds like to us laymen, and the confusion arises for two reasons: First, because theoretical physicists use language differently than the general public, so that words like "nothing" don't mean nothing and absurd phrases like "create itself" actually mean something. Secondly, Hawking and others make the huge leap from a mathematical representation of a theoretical Multiverse, to philosophical/theological assumptions. The universe “creating itself” in this sense has no effect on the Christian understanding of God as creator.
Big universe
The properties of our universe that have been revealed over the past several centuries by astrophysicists (and, more recently, the Hubble telescope) are breathtaking: There are many of billions of galaxies, with many billions of stars, and potentially billions of planets, billions of miles away. Some people have taken the vastness of the universe as evidence against the specialness of our planet, and thus, the specialness of mankind. Others believe that the greatness of the universe is evidence for the greatness of God. Ultimately, it is one's perspective that determines whether the size of the universe inspires feelings of insignificance or awed wonder (or both).
ET Phone Home
And what does the physical size of the universe tell us about extraterrestrial life? Even if we admit that the odds of there being aliens on any particular planet, orbiting any particular star, in any particular galaxy, might be infinitesimally small, there are so many billions of stars that it's hard to rule out any chance of life anywhere besides Earth. How does that effect our theology? Well, if none of the other life in the universe is intelligent, then it doesn’t necessarily affect it at all, since we've always known that plenty of things are alive besides mankind (such as animals, plants, and muppets).
Would it change our theology to find out that God has made creatures on other planets? We already know that God made at least one other kind of intelligent creature: angels. He is powerful enough to invent as many races as He chooses, so it's not an issue of His being able. It really comes down to God's nature; He made humanity in His own image, He watched us rebel against Him, and He did everything necessary to bring us back into fellowship again. Would He create other free creatures, in another place, that He might need to save as well?
I don't pretend to know the answer to that question. What I do know is this: that God's nature, especially His intimate concern for all He has made, is unchanging. Whatever He has made, He rules with justice and mercy. If we are the only creatures in the universe that are made in His image, that's fine. And if He has created other beings with whom He can have fellowship, that's fine too. I just hope they aren't any more sinful than we are, and I'd like to meet one (if I haven’t already).
Playing by the Rules
Regardless of what certain physicists say, physics cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. But the physical sciences can cause us to reflect on the material universe and consider what kind of creator might have made it. For those of us convinced of God's existence on philosophical grounds, the rules and forms of the universe are a peek into the creative process of the universe's designer. Even Albert Einstein, who seemed to have conflicting thoughts about the supernatural, said things like:
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”
and
“The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” (Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson, 2008)
Einstein understood that the laws of the universe point to something greater than a cosmic accident. Things are just too perfect, the math is too elegant, to be chalked up to blind chance. The laws of physics are a sign that the universe was designed by a perfect mind. The physical properties of the universe, from gravity to the speed of light, to the unfolding of the Big Bang, are so finely attuned and balanced to one another, that we stand in awe of any power that could make things just so.
The universe is just begging for some kind of explanation, and it feels like a huge letdown to say, as Laurence Krauss does, that it just happens to be that way, and there's nobody to thank for it. It is much more satisfying, intellectually and spiritually, to believe that the universe was created by a super-intelligent, creative God, who is glorified by what He has made and who loves to reveal Himself to us. If we look with open minds, I believe we can see the handiwork of God in the physical universe, and I am thankful for physics and physicists.