Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Journal , Vol 61, Number 3, September 2009

76 Pages·1.997 MB·English

by  American Scientific Affiliation

PERSPECTIVES on Science
P
E
R
S
P
E
C and Christian Faith
T
IV
E
S
O
N
S
C
IE
N
C
E
A
N JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION
D
C
H
R
IS
T
IA
N
FA In this issue …
IT
H
The Puzzle of Existence
Assessing Evidences for the
Evolution of a Human Cognitive Platform
V
O for “Soulish Behaviors”
L
U
M
E
Prophet of Science—Part Two:
6
1
, Arthur Holly Compton on
N
U
M Science, Freedom, Religion, and Morality
B
E
R
3
“The fear of the Lord
is the beginning of Wisdom.”
Psalm 111:10
S
E
P
T
E
M
B
E
R
2
0
0
9
VOLUME 61, NUMBER 3 SEPTEMBER 2009
(USISSN0892-2675) (CPM#40927506)
PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith Manuscript Guidelines
©2009bytheAmericanScientificAffiliation
ThepagesofPerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith(PSCF)areopen
Editor tooriginal,unpublishedcontributionsthatinteractwithscienceandChristian
faithinamannerconsistentwithscientificandtheologicalintegrity.Published
ARIELEEGWATER(CalvinCollege)
papersdonotreflectanyofficialpositionoftheAmericanScientificAffiliation.
1726KnollcrestCir.SE,GrandRapids,MI49546
[email protected] 1.Submit all manuscripts to: Arie Leegwater, Editor, Calvin College,
DeVriesHall,1726KnollcrestCircleSE,GrandRapids,MI49546-4403.
ManagingEditor E-mail:[email protected]
LYNBERG(AmericanScientificAffiliation) 10daysoftheirreceipt.
POBox668,Ipswich,MA01938-0668 2.Authorsmustsubmitanelectroniccopyofthemanuscriptformattedin
[email protected] Wordasanemailattachment.Typically2–3anonymousreviewerscritique
eachmanuscriptsubmittedforpublication.
BookReviewEditors
3.Useendnotes forall references.Each notemust haveauniquenumber.
REBECCAFLIETSTRA(PointLomaNazareneUniv.) FollowTheChicagoManualofStyle(14thed.,sections15.1to15.426).
3900LomalandDr.,SanDiego,CA92106
[email protected] 4.WhilefiguresanddiagramsmaybeembeddedwithintheWordtextfileofthe
manuscript,authorsarerequiredtoalsosendthemasindividualelectronic
JAMESC.PETERSON(McMasterUniversityDivinity files (JPEGorTIFFformat).Figurecaptions should beprovided as alist
CollegeandFacultyofHealthSciences) attheendofthemanuscripttext.Authorsareencouragedalsotosubmit
1280MainSt.West,Hamilton,ONL8S4K1Canada asampleofgraphicartthatcanbeusedtoillustratetheirmanuscript.
[email protected]
ARTICLESaremajortreatmentsofaparticularsubjectrelatingsciencetoa
ARIELEEGWATER(CalvinCollege) Christianposition.Suchpapersshouldbeatleast2,000wordsbutnotmore
1726KnollcrestCir.SE,GrandRapids,MI49546 than6,000wordsinlength,excludingendnotes.Anabstractof50–150words
[email protected]
isrequired.Publicationforsuchpapersnormallytakes9–12monthsfromthe
timeofacceptance.
EditorialBoard
CHARLESC.ADAMS,DordtCollege COMMUNICATIONSarebrieftreatmentsofawiderangeofsubjectsofinterest
HESSELBOUMAIII,CalvinCollege to PSCF readers. Communications mustnotbelongerthan2700 words,
WALTERL.BRADLEY,BaylorUniversity excludingendnotes.Communicationsarenormallypublished6–9monthsfrom
WARRENS.BROWN,FullerGraduateSchoolof thetimeofacceptance.
Psychology
JEANNEBUNDENS,EasternUniversity NEWS&VIEWSareshortcommentariesoncurrentscientificdiscoveriesor
HARRYCOOK,TheKing’sUniversityCollege,Canada events,oropinionpiecesonscienceandfaithissues.Lengthsrangefrom200
JANELM.CURRY,CalvinCollege to 1,500 words. Submissions are typically published 3–6 months from the
EDWARDB.DAVIS,MessiahCollege
timeofacceptance.
KARLV.EVANS,Lakewood,CO
LOUISEM.FREEMAN,MaryBaldwinCollege BOOK REVIEWS serve to alert the readership to new books that appear
OWENGINGERICH,Harvard-SmithsonianCenterfor
significantorusefulandengagethesebooksincriticalinteraction.Guidelines
Astrophysics
for book reviewers can be obtained from the incoming book review editors.
JOHNW.HAAS,JR.,GordonCollege
Noterespectivesubjectareas:
WALTERR.HEARN,Berkeley,California
D.GARETHJONES,UniversityofOtago,NewZealand (cid:2) RebeccaFlietstra([email protected]):anthropology,biology,environ-
CALVINJONGSMA,DordtCollege ment, neuroscience, origins, and social sciences.
CHRISTOPHERB.KAISER,WesternTheological (cid:2) JamesC.Peterson([email protected]):apologetics,biblicalstudies,
Seminary bioethics, ethics, genetics, medical education, philosophy, and theology.
GORDONR.LEWTHWAITE,CaliforniaState (cid:2) Arie Leegwater ([email protected]): cosmology, engineering, history of
University,Northridge
science, mathematics, non-bio technologies, and physical sciences.
H.NEWTONMALONY,FullerTheologicalSeminary
The viewpoints expressed in the books reviewed, and in the reviews
SARAMILES,EasternUniversity
themselves,arethoseoftheauthorsandreviewersrespectively,anddonot
KEITHB.MILLER,KansasStateUniversity
reflectanofficialpositionoftheASA.
STANLEYW.MOORE,PepperdineUniversity
GEORGEL.MURPHY,TrinityLutheranSeminary,
Columbus,OH LETTERStotheEditorconcerning PSCFcontentmaybepublished unless
ROBERTC.NEWMAN,BiblicalTheologicalSeminary marked not for publication. Letters submitted for publication must not be
JACKC.SWEARENGEN,SantaRosa,CA longer than 700 words and will be subject to editorial review. Letters are
WALTERR.THORSON,Calgary,Alberta,Canada tobesubmittedaselectroniccopies.Lettersacceptedforpublicationwillbe
PETERVIBERT,WadingRiverCongregationalChurch publishedwithin6months.
DAVISA.YOUNG,CalvinCollege
ADVERTISING is accepted in PSCF, subject to editorial approval. Please
ESTHER MARTIN,ManuscriptEditor address inquiries for rates or further information to the Managing Editor.
The ASA cannot take responsibility for any orders placed with advertisers
PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
inPSCF.
(ISSN0892-2675)ispublishedquarterlyfor$40
per yearbythe American Scientific Affiliation, AUTHORIZATION TO PHOTOCOPY MATERIAL for internal, personal, or
55 Market Street, Ipswich, MA 01938-0668. educationalclassroomuse,ortheinternalorpersonaluseofspecificclients,
Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]; is granted by ASA, ISSN: 0892-2675, provided that the appropriate fee is
[email protected];www.asa3.org paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive,
Periodicals postage paid at Ipswich, MA and Danvers, MA 01923 USA forconventional use, orcheck CCConline at the
at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: followingaddress:www.copyright.com/.NoregistrationwithCCCisneeded:
Send address changes to: Perspectives on simplyidentifythearticlebeingcopied,thenumberofcopies,andthejournal
Science and Christian Faith, The American title (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith). For those who wish to
ScientificAffiliation,POBox668,Ipswich,MA request permission for other kinds of copying or reprinting, kindly write to
01938-0668. theManagingEditor.
Guest Editorial
The ASA in 2109:
How We Got There
Edward B. Davis
Edward B. Davis
O
neofthebenefitsofbeingahistorianisthat Our purpose is even clearer: “to investigate any
yougettoencounterthepastinthepresent, area relating Christian faith and science” and
throughtheperceptionsandexperiencesof “to make known the results of such investigations
our predecessors. I have yet to figure out how to for comment and criticism by the Christian com-
encounter the future, yet historians are often asked munity and by the scientific community.” Again,
to prognosticate: considering the history of this or we find just the right amount of specificity, with
that, what do you think will happen in the next enough breadth to ensure that many interesting
quarter century? Usually I decline the opportunity topics will get plenty of attention, while leaving
to consult my crystal ball, but let us pretend for some controversial topics on the outside, for ex-
themomentthatIhaveusedittopeerintothefuture ample, those related to more purely political or
oftheASA,lookingforwardtoacenturyfromnow, theological disputes—though both politics and
when no one reading this editorial will be able to theology can certainly influence one’s views about
tell me how badly I was misled by that transparent science and Christianity.
little sphere.
The other part of our purpose reflects the two
The premise behind this thought experiment is, worlds in which our members live and work: first,
of course, that the ASA will still exist in 2109, in the body of Christ, of which we are only a very
whentherewillbe168candlesonitsbirthdaycake. smallpart,withmillionsmorenolessvaluablethan
Plenty of organizations and institutions have been ourselves; second, in the professional communities
around far longer, but more than a few have not to which we belong and to whom we can be salt
made it even to our present age, a modest and light. In short, the ASA exists to advance the
sixty-eight. If we are still here in 2109, what will activity of science—including the social sciences
have made it possible? What might some future and technology, along with the natural sciences—
historian say then about how we got there? as a proper Christian vocation. If we are still here
in 2109, it will be because we remained faithful to
First, he or she might say, we were clear about
this vision.
whoweareandwhyweexist.TheASAiscurrently
defined as “a fellowship of men and women of Our future historian might identify a second,
science and disciplines that can relate to science equally important, factor; he or she might find that
who share a common fidelity to the Word of God ourmemberswerestronglycommittedtothefuture
and a commitment to integrity in the practice of of the ASA, indeed, to its very existence as an or-
science.” This has the advantage of being specific, ganization dedicated to advancing the kingdom of
without being too specific—Christians from a vari- Godthroughourscientificvocations. Thisiswhere
etyof backgrounds, whoholda variety of theologi- Icomein,asyourcurrentpresident,andthisisalso
cal perspectives, are invited to become members, where you come in, as the members who entrusted
as long as they affirm the importance of the Bible me with that job. My proposal to ensure that the
as an authentic divine revelation and do not mis- ASA will be here for future generations of Chris-
represent scientific knowledge. tians in science is simple. I call it, “1 and 1 and 1.”
Volume61,Number3,September2009 137
Guest Editorial
The ASA in 2109: HowWe Got There
Here is what each of us can do, and if we do, then their walk in Christ. If one-third of our members
I have no doubt that our future historian will have follow through with this part of my proposal, then
something good to say about us. Let each member very soon the ASA will be able to do new things
commit to doing three things for the ASA: that will benefit both the body of Christ and the
scientific community. If one-fifth of our members
1. Persuade 1 persontobecomea permanentmem-
follow through with the second part, we will all
beroftheASAinthenextfiveyears;
makewonderfulnewfriends,andourannualmeet-
2. Attend 1 annual meeting in the next five years, ings will be even better than they already are.
andkeepthispatternaslongasyoucan; If even one-tenth of our members follow through
withthethirdpart,theASAwillbelessdependent
3. Give 1 percentof your estate, at the time of your
onannualgiving;ifone-fourthfollowthroughwith
death,totheASAendowmentfund.
the third part, we could start to plan major new
Speaking now in the present rather than in the initiatives in a couple of decades, or even sooner,
future, our greatest single need is to grow the ASA if more members participate. Let us go forth with
by another few hundred members—a goal that lies courage and faith, trusting in him who holds the
inourcollectivehandstoachieveinthenextdecade, future in his hands! (cid:2)
long before the next century. This can and should
follownaturallyfromourcallingtomentoryounger Edward (Ted) B. Davis, ASA President
colleaguesintheirdevelopmentasscientistsandin [email protected]
theological reflection. Ralph Stearley (Calvin Col-
lege) assesses the evidence for the development of
humanoid “soulish behaviors,” and in so doing
In This
challenges previous scientific and theological inter-
pretations. Ted Davis (Messiah College) continues
Issue hishistoricalreadingoftheinfluentialscientificand
religious life of Arthur Compton.
This issue ends with a new category: a book
review by Scott Rae (Biola University) of a recently
This September issue of PSCF may lack the sym-
published book by Joel B. Green (Fuller Seminary)
metry of the previous issue, but not its timeliness.
en- titled Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of
This issue is cast in the shadow of contemporary
Humanity in the Bible (Baker Academic, 2008) and
challenges.Itbeginswithaguesteditorial“TheASA
Green’s response. These scholars clearly differ in
in 2109: How We Got There” written by the newly-
their interpretation of Scripture and how best to
minted president of ASA, Edward (Ted) Davis, and
allowthenaturalsciencestoinfluencetheirreading.
carries a challenge to ASA members to endeavor
Thechallengeoffaithfullyreadingandinterpreting
to make the ASA better equipped to realize its mis-
Scripture is one we all share.
sion,andstretchitscollectivevisionandprospective
reach totheyear 2109.
Afinalwordaboutbookreviews:Asbookreview
editors, we have attempted to provide a diversity
Besides this “state of the ASA” piece, we have a
of challenging book reviews. While still utilizing
diversity of articles ranging from modern cosmol-
the “master-list” of ASA reviewers which has been
ogy, the evolution of human cognitive capacities,
generated, we have tried to broaden the base by
part II of a series on Arthur Compton, to a detailed
inviting other reviewers to speak to the relevance
book review with a response by the book’s author.
and quality of recently published books.
Robert Mann (University of Waterloo) explores
(once again) an ancient conundrum—the puzzle of Tolle lege: take up this issue and read. (cid:2)
existence—by framing the puzzle in a way that is
cognizant of recent findings in cosmology and Arie Leegwater, Editor
which poses a serious challenge to contemporary [email protected]
138 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
Article
The Puzzle of Existence
RobertB. Mann
Grappling with the problem of existence is one of the central tasks of theology,
one that is both challenged and illuminated by scientific inquiry. The traditional
form of the problem has been that of understanding why anything exists at all. Robert Mann
While science and theology areharmoniouslycomplementaryin addressing certain
aspects of this problem, a key point of tension between them has been in evaluating
the role of Mind relative to matter. This is theology’s oldest challenge.
Icontendthattheology’snewestchallengeisthatofunderstandingtheparticularity
The key
of existence: why it is that some things exist instead of everything. This new
form of the problem of existence is motivated by findings from modern cosmology,
problem—
which have beeninterpreted assuggesting that ouruniverse ispartofamultiverse
in which all things exist. The key problem—for both science and theology—is in for both
understanding how to distinguish what exists from what is possible.
T science and
hepuzzle ofexistenceis a ques- features. In theological terms, such an
theology—
tion having multiple layers of understanding begins with the asser-
meaning, and it can be asked tion that Mind is fundamentally the
is in
at a variety of levels. Most people con- root of existence, the ground of being.
cerned with it begin with the self. While this claim is thematic in all reli-
understanding
WhydoIexist?WheredidIcomefrom? gions, itperhaps reaches its pinnaclein
What does my existence mean relative the Gospel of John, which begins by
how to
to my community? What will my exis- stating that “In the beginning was the
tence mean, if anything, in the overall Word,andtheWordwaswithGod,and
context of reality? At a broader level, the Word was God.”2 (cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5) (cid:6)(cid:7) (cid:8) distinguish
manypeopleextendthequestionbeyond (cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:5)—Theos en o Logos—encapsulates
themselves. Why does my community two coupled insights. One is that it is what exists
exist? Why does my environment exist, Logos—Word, Logic, Reason, Account,
andwherediditcomefrom?Istheform Meaning, Principle, Thought—that is from what
of existence of my community and/or the ultimate source of all things. The
environment optimal or can it be im- otheris thatthis Logosis God, thegreat is possible.
provedsomehow?Atthebroadestlevel, Other,theMindthatsourcesallmatter.
thesekindsofquestionscanbeaskedof
all of reality. Why does anything exist Robert Mann has a BSc in physics from McMaster University and
at all? Why does this world exist? an MSc and PhD from the University of Toronto. Currently a professor
of physics at the University of Waterloo, he has been a visiting researcher
Whatistheoriginofallthatweobserve
at Harvard University, Cambridge University, and the Kavli Institute for
and experience?
Theoretical Physics. He was president of the CSCA from 1996–2007 and
chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of
Providingaresponsetothepuzzleof
Waterloo from 2001–2008. He is president of the Canadian Association of
existenceistheology’soldestchallenge.1
PhysicistsandisontheAdvisoryBoardoftheJohnTempletonFoundation.
That there is something rather than Hisresearchinterestsareinblackholes,cosmology,particlephysics,quantum
nothing cannot be taken for granted if foundations, and quantum information. Married with one daughter, he is
one wishes to obtain a fully coherent a member of the First Mennonite Church in Kitchener, Ontario, where he
regularly teaches Sunday School. For recreation he enjoys video-making,
understandingofreality,onethatincor-
cross-country skiing, cats, dogs, cycling, and acting in musicals.
poratesbothitsobjectiveandsubjective
Volume61,Number3,September2009 139
Article
The Puzzle of Existence
More succinctly, it is Intelligence that is the source unstable particles), and that two particles of the
of our intelligible existence. same type are completely indistinguishable from
oneanother.Thisisfoundationaltoourunderstand-
ing of particle physics.4 Yet it is logically possible
Something instead of Nothing
thateachofthese1080particlescouldhavehaddis-
Canweproceedtheotherwayaround?Canonerea- tinct properties and features, in which case any
sonably say that a comprehensible universe has its comprehensive scientific formalism for describing
origins in a Comprehender? To ask the question is them would be effectively impossible. Indeed, we
to make certain assumptions about existence. First, are already aware of systems—the structure of the
the universe needs to have enough stable order so nucleus, weather systems, protein folding—whose
thatintelligentagentscancarryoutinvestigationsto enormouscomplexitypushesustothelimitsofour
discern its intelligibility. Second, the universe must ability to understand them scientifically. It is cer-
not be too complicated for such agents to at least tainlyconceivablethatafullscientificdescriptionof
partially understand. Third, there needs to be some them may forever elude us—though, of course, we
openness as to the possibility that a Mind might willnotknowunlesswetry.Whatcanbesaidwith
exist, along with criteria for deciding what makes confidence is that the intelligibility of our universe
such an inference reasonable. hasbeenofsufficienttransparencytoyieldinlarge
part to our scientific attempts to understand it.
Thefirsttwoassumptionsarefoundationaltothe
scientific process. From the earliest classifications Thethirdassumption—opennesstothepossibility
that hunter-gatherer societies made about the flora of Mind and a criterion for understanding it—has
andfaunaoftheirenvironmenttothemostsophisti- been and remains a point of considerable contro-
cated theories and observations made by cosmolo- versy. The comprehensibility of the universe pro-
gists of the cosmic microwave background, the duces a sense of awe and wonder in believer and
wholeendeavorofsciencepresupposesthepossibil- unbeliever alike. Our comprehensible universe is
ityofastableorderinwhichreasonandobservation perhaps best received as a gift, one to which our
can provide us with reliable knowledge. It simply most profound response can only be that of deep
would not be possible to do science otherwise.3 gratitude to the One who made it possible.5 Pro-
One could imagine, for example, a universe (or ceedingfromwondertogratitudeisaresponsethat
planet for that matter) in which the environment comes naturally to those willing to place their faith
underwent significant changes of such frequency in the Word, the Logos behind it all. The grand
that knowledge gathered at one time becomes endeavorofsciencecanbeunderstoodasaprocess
nearlyuselesslateron.Forintelligentagentstosur- of unwrapping this marvelous present we call the
vive in such an environment, it is only necessary universe.
thattheirphysiologybeabletoadapttosuchchang-
Yet this same response is deeply troubling to
ingconditionsandthattheknowledgetheyhavebe
many. To assert the existence of Mind and further-
sufficientforsurvival.Indeed,suchconditionshave
more to place one’s faith in that Mind strikes them
been (and can be) replicated on earth in a cultural
asaformofmagicalthinking,oneinwhichrational
sense—unstable societies are generally not places
thought has yielded to wishes and fairy tales.
where science flourishes.
In contributing to our understanding of the puzzle
The second assumption is of no less importance. of existence, science has proceeded by discarding
Itisquitepossibleforastableuniversetoexistthat magic in favor of mechanism, employing reason
is simply beyond the comprehension of any of its andobservationtodiscernthedetailsofthismecha-
beings to understand. Consider the following ex- nism. Believers will be quick to point out that this
ample—withabout1058particlesperstar, 1011stars process is not in contradiction with their perspec-
pergalaxyand1011observedgalaxies,itfollowsthat tive, and that theology is a not-dissimilar process
our observable universe consists of approximately involving reflection and revelation, which are then
1080particles.Oneofthe(indirect)discoveriesofthe employedtodiscerntheMeaningbehindthemech-
past century is that all of these particles come in anism.6 Such Meaning receives its most coherent
onlyahandfuloftypes(electrons,upquarks,down level of understanding in God, the Logos that
quarks,neutrinos,photons,alongwithseveralother empowers existence with Telos or Purpose. In this
140 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
RobertB.Mann
Something instead of Everything
sense, science and theology make a joint contribu-
tion to the “why something instead of nothing”
It is clear that the “something instead of nothing”
problem.
problem,whileold,isonethatstillprovidesinterest-
ing challenges for theology to deal with. Recently,
Nevertheless, most scientists do not regard the
a new theological challenge connected with the
assumptionofMindasaproductivescientificstrat-
puzzle of existence has appeared on the scene, one
egy.7 They generally contend that there are appar-
driven by several different sources of scientific
ently no sound criteria for making use of it, nor of
inquiry in thepast few decades.
itsaccompanyingnotionsofmeaningandpurpose.
It would be far better to put aside this concept
Onecanstatetheproblembymeansofastraight-
entirely and proceed on the basis of what is called
forward mathematical analogy. Any finite collec-
naturalism, an ecbatic8 approach to understanding
tionofobjectscanbecountedas1,simplybytaking
reality. Scientifically, this involves the assumption
the number of objects in the set and dividing out
that explanations of observable effects are fruitful
bythatnumber.Ratherthancountingalltheobjects
andconstructiveonlywhentheyhypothesizenatu-
in the set, we simply count the set as one object.
ral causes (in other words, specific mechanisms,
Of course this approach will not work if there are
notindeterminate miracles or magic). Going by the
no objects in the set—in that case, we employ the
nameof“methodologicalnaturalism,”thisapproach
number 0, as a way of saying that there is nothing.
is technically agnostic and should be distinguished
In this simplified context, the puzzle of existence is
from the assertion that “nature is all there is and
thepuzzleofwhythesetisnotempty.Whyisthere
allbasictruthsaretruthsofnature,”aviewknown
1 instead of 0?
as philosophical naturalism.9 While this latter per-
spective is not logically implied by the former, Withonlyslightlymoresophisticationwecango
it has been argued that the empirical success flow- furtherwithourmathematical analogy. Whatif we
ing from the vast body of scientific knowledge, cannot count the objects in the collection because
combined with the lack of any sound criteria for there are too many of them? No matter how large
discerningsupernaturaleventsorprocesses,makes the count, there are always more to be counted.
it the only reasonable stance to adopt.10 Inmathematicalterms,wesaythatthesetisinfinite
in size, and we give it the symbol (cid:2). So, extending
This sets naturalism at odds with theism, which
our simple analogy further, we can just as well ask
for many is an uncomfortable and unnecessary the question, why is there 1 instead of (cid:2)? Why is
situation, but one that is all too common to ignore.
there something rather than everything?
Theistswouldliketounderstandexistencerootedin
Mind or Logos. This offers the advantage of under- This last question is one that has seldom been
standingsubjectiveexperienceinthesamecoherent asked. If addressing the “something instead of
frameworkasobjectivereality,speakingasmuchto nothing” question is theology’s oldest challenge,
theheartastothemind.11Yettheemergenceofmat- the “something instead of everything” question is
ter from Mind is a problem that theology has not theology’s newest challenge.14 In principle, this
satisfactorily addressed. Naturalists prefer to question could have been asked a long time ago,
understand existence in fully observable and mea- since, in some sense, it is the converse of the old
surable terms, with life and minds emerging from “something instead of nothing” question. It is clear
matter through fully undirected reductionist pro- that we inhabit a world in which something physi-
cesses.12 Proponents of this approach regard it as cally exists instead of nothing. It only takes a little
the most philosophically economical and empiri- more reflection to realize that some things do not
cally successful strategy to employ. Yet it ignores physically exist, though they could have. This is
not only the problem of consciousness and its per- typically trivial—that there are only ten flowers in
sistent resistance to yield to reductionism, but also acertaingardeninsteadoffifteen,orthatmyheight
does not really address the issue of what it is that is 6 ft instead of an inch shorter or taller—but can
puts “fire into the equations of physics and makes entail both the fanciful (there are no unicorns) and
a universe for them to describe.”13 theprofound(Ifortunatelyavoidedcancerbecause
of the timely removal of a tumor).
Volume61,Number3,September2009 141
Article
The Puzzle of Existence
From this viewpoint, the “something instead of 1. Compareouruniverse—withitsknownconstants
everything”questionisreallyapuzzleofparticular- ofnature—tomembersofasetofpossibleuniverses
ity. Why do certain things and events exist and that would result if these quantities had numerical
notothers?Moregenerally,ifsomethingcanexist— values different from those we observe. One can
by whatever logically self-consistent criteria—why extend this exercise to include types of particles,
does it not exist? Most generally, why does every- laws of physics, and initial conditions that are
thing not exist? Why is there not (cid:2)instead of 1? likewisemodifiedrelativetotheirknowntypesand
mathematicalstructure.
Thislastformofthequestionmightseemabsurd,
sinceitwouldappeartobeobviousthateverything 2. Askthequestion:“Arethelife-permittingfeatures
does not exist. However, a growing body of evi- of our universe typical or special?” In other words,
dence from cosmology and particle physics has wouldlifeasweknowitbecommonamongstother
suggested that perhaps this question is not so universesintheset?
absurd. Intellectual honesty compels us to examine
The answer appears to be that life is notcommon.17
such evidence, from both scientific and theological
Our universe appears to be very special in that it is
perspectives, if we want to come to grips with the
finely tuned for the existence of many things that
puzzle of existence.
make it hospitable for life. This is neither obvious
nor logically necessary. A simple example should
Our Atypical Universe sufficetomakethepoint.Supposeweimagineacol-
lection of universes that are alike in every respect
We now have enough knowledge about our uni-
exceptthatthemassoftheneutrondiffersineachone.
verse, at both macroscopic and microscopic scales,
In some universes, the neutron is heavier than the
to ask whether it is a typical specimen out of all
observed value of 1.674692712(13) x 10-27 kg that it
the possible kinds of universes one might imagine.
hasinouruniverse,18whereasinothersitislighter.
What has emerged from the scientific body of
Superficially, it might seem that such universes
knowledgeisthattheanswerappearstobenegative:
wouldtrivially differ fromoneanother,but,infact,
ouruniverseisatypicalinanumberofrespectsthat
the difference is quite striking. In those universes
areconnectedinunexpectedandperhapsprofound
where the neutron is just 0.2% lighter (or less),
ways with our own existence. There are four main
protonspreferentiallydecayintoneutrons(andposi-
linesofthoughtpertinenttothisassertionthatIshall
tronsandneutrinos).Itwouldbeenergeticallyfavor-
now briefly outline. Two of them—biophilic selec-
ableforprotonseverywheretodecay,leadingtothe
tion and cosmic fine-tuning—are “bottom-up,” in
absenceofhydrogenandallotherknownatoms,and
thattheyproceedfromassessmentofabodyofdata.
thereforetotheabsenceoflife.Inuniverseswherethe
Theothertwo—cosmicinflationandstringtheory—
neutron is just 0.2% heavier (or more), all neutrons
are “top-down,” in that they originate from general
woulddecay,makinganyatomsotherthanhydrogen
scientific hypotheses concerning the structure of
impossible to form.
physical reality.
We inhabit a universe in which the neutron is
Biophilic Selection
just heavy enough to ensure that, as the universe
Biophilic selection refers to the idea that the struc- cooledfollowingtheBigBang,justenoughneutrons
ture of our universe is constrained by the fact that (one for every seven protons) became bound with
it must be able to support life as we know it.15 protons to form a rich variety of stable nuclei for
This seems to be a superfluous statement, since atoms to form and life to exist. The excess protons
obviously there could be no scientists investigating end up mainly as hydrogen that goes into making
a universe that is hostile to life. It was Brandon long-lived stable stars, water, and a host of bio-
Carter who realized that this issue merited deeper molecules, all of which are necessary for life.
investigation, and he wondered whether the exis- There are many such examples of this type that
tence of intelligent life on our planet could tell us follow from modifying the known laws and con-
something about the properties of the universe as a stants of physics. While mathematical solutions to
whole.16 At the risk of oversimplification, the chain the equations of physics are robust to such small
of reasoning goes like this: modifications, life as we know it is not.
142 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith
RobertB.Mann
Cosmic Fine-Tuning
observation, we must adjust the initial density of
Cosmic fine-tuning refers to the set of observations theuniversetobenearlyequaltoitscriticaldensity,
whichindicatethatthelarge-scale propertiesofour to 62-decimal-place precision.21
universe are in an apparent state of very delicate
There are several other fine-tuning situations in
balance.19 Put another way, the standard model of
cosmology,mostnotablythehorizonproblem22and
cosmology will agree with observations only when
the cosmological constant problem.23 The horizon
its parameters are very precisely adjusted, meaning
problemreferstothefactthatthetemperatureofthe
that small changes in these parameters result in
cosmic microwave background is uniform every-
significantdisagreementwithobservation.Thereare
whereto1partin30,000,buttherehasbeeninsuffi-
severalexamplesofthis.Oneistheflatnessproblem,
cient time for the different regions of the universe
whichreferstotheobservationthatthecurrentden-
to come into thermal contact to make this possible.
sity of our universe is very close toits critical value
A rough estimate indicates that there were about
atwhichspaceisperfectlyflat(thatis,inwhichpar-
1088 communication zones (distinct causal regions)
allel lines remain equidistant and never meet), as
shortly after the Big Bang, which means there
opposed to being positively curved like a sphere
should be 1088 distinct temperate regions (some-
(wheresuchlinesultimatelyconverge)ornegatively
what analogous to the different climate zones on
curved like a saddle (where such lines ultimately
Earth), each of which has its own characteristic
diverge). This is easily appreciated by inspection of
temperature. The puzzle is that these 1088different
a simple equation from general relativity20
“cosmological climate zones” all have almost
(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:6)1(cid:3)(cid:11)c (cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:11)a2 (cid:10)3kc2 exactly the same temperature. Is there some reason
(cid:5) (cid:11) (cid:8) 8(cid:12)G for this?
thatindicateshowthedensityofmatterandenergy(cid:11) The cosmological constant problem refers to the
modify the curvature of space. Curvature is de- observation that our universe is accelerating in its
scribedbytheparameterk,whichtakesonthevalues expansion. There are several ways of modeling
of–1,0,or1foranegativelycurved(saddle-like),flat, suchexpansion,butthesimplestistouseaconstant
orpositivelycurved(sphere-like)space,respectively, vacuum energy density (unlike the mass-energy
at a given scale factor a (which is a measure of the density(cid:11),whichdoeschangewithtime).Theprob-
“size”oftheuniverse,orratherthedistancebetween lemisthatthevacuumenergyrequiredtogenerate
anytwospatial pointsatagiventime).Thepointis the observed acceleration is almost but not exactly
that the right-hand side of this equation is constant zero, and all known attempts to compute it from
(wherecisthespeedoflightandGisNewton’sgravi- generaltheoreticalprinciplesgettherequiredvalue
tational constant), but the left-hand side contains wrong by a factor of 10120—regarded by many
quantitiesthatchangewithtime.Clearly,ifk=0,then as the most embarrassing disagreement between
(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:11) , meaning that the density must always have theory and observation in all of science!24
c
beenconstantatavalueknownasthecriticaldensity
The “bottom-up” perspectives of biophilic selec-
(thedensityneededtoensurek=0),whosevalueis
(cid:11) (cid:10)10(cid:3)26kg/m3.However,weobserveouruniverse tion and cosmic fine-tuning give us good reason to
c
regard our universe as atypical. It is obvious that
tobeexpanding:thescalefactoraisincreasingwith
we can only live in a universe whose laws, struc-
timelessrapidlythanitsdensityisdecreasing,andso
(cid:11)a2isdecreasingwithtime.Thismeansthat1(cid:3)(cid:11) /(cid:11) tures, and initial conditions permit life to exist—
c
otherwise we would not be around to discuss it!
must increase with time to compensate. Extrapolat-
Whatisnotsoobviousisthattheselaws,structures,
ingcurrentobservationsbacktotheBigBang,wefind
that (cid:11)a2 has decreased by a factor of 1060 and so and initial conditions are quite a special subset out
1(cid:3)(cid:11) /(cid:11) must have increased by the same factor. of the collection of possibilities.
c
But current observations also indicate that today What might this mean? This is where the
1(cid:3)(cid:11)c/(cid:11) (cid:13)0.01, which means that just after the Big “top-down” approaches come in: they provide
Bang 1(cid:3)(cid:11)c/(cid:11) (cid:13)10(cid:3)62.Thisistheflatness problem: theoretical mechanisms whereby such atypicality
in order to get the current model to agree with might be realized.
Volume61,Number3,September2009 143
Article
The Puzzle of Existence
Cosmic Inflation
uum is equivalent to a cosmological constant, so
The first of these, cosmic inflation, was developed during inflation the cosmological constant is pre-
in response to the flatness and horizon problems.25 sumed large enough to cause the rapid expansion,
While there is nothing logically inconsistent about afterwhichspacetimeundergoesatransitiontoour
delicatelybalancingtheinitialconditionsofouruni- true (or perhaps I should say, less false) vacuum
verse to achieve agreement in its observed flatness with its observed small cosmological constant.
anduniformityoftemperature,suchanapproachis While there are many mechanisms for generating
regarded as an unsatisfactory contrivance. Inflation thecosmologicalconstantinboththefalseandtrue
is an approach that replaces this contrivance with vacuums,itispresentlyunknownwhichone,ifany,
a mechanism. The basic idea is that very shortly— iscorrect.Inthispicturethebirthofouruniverseis
onlyabout10-35seconds—aftertheBigBang,astate the nucleation of a region (or bubble) of true
ofmattercalledafalsevacuumexisted.Thiskindof vacuumoutoffalse,andourobservableuniverseis
matter interacts with gravity in such a way as to a tiny region inside this bubble.
generate an exponentially rapid expansion of the
Of course there is no guarantee that the true
scalefactora.Theuniversecandoubleinsizeevery
vacuumthatformsistheonethathastheproperties
10-34 seconds via this process, so if it only happens
of our vacuum. Many different kinds of bubbles
for 10-32 seconds, the universe increases in size by
canform,withinwhicheachwillhaveitsownlow-
afactorof2100or1030.Asinglecommunicationzone,
energylawsofphysics.Soperhaps,itisconjectured,
of near-uniform temperature, can expand by this
inflationhappensperpetually,withanendlessvari-
factor, stretching out to near-perfect flatness what-
ety of bubbles percolating out of some primordial
ever wrinkles in curvature it might have originally
falsevacuum.Thisscenario,knownaseternalinfla-
had. In this picture, our observable universe is a
tion, endlessly generates a plethora of universes.26
smallpartofthiscommunicationzone,expandingto
In this context, eternal inflation asserts that instead
a grapefruit-sized region after the end of this infla-
of just something, there, in fact, is everything!
tionary era, and then expanding more slowly over
the next 13.7 billion years to become the cosmos
String Theory
weseetoday.Thisisapossiblemechanismbywhich
(atleastsomeof)thefeaturesofourcosmosbecome Another theoretical mechanism pertinent to cosmic
fine-tuned totheir apparentparticularity. atypicality is string theory. This theory posits that
the fundamental particles of nature are line-like in-
The false vacuum required for inflation to work
stead of point-like, and so are called strings. These
is a very peculiar state of matter. Since there is
strings can either be open like shoelaces or closed
nothing for it to depend on, its energy density
like rubber bands. The idea is that all observed ele-
must be constant everywhere at all times. Suppose
mentaryparticlesandforcesaredifferentexcitations
someone were able to place some false vacuum
ofonestring-likeobject,aparticularlyattractiveuni-
insideacylinderfittedwithapiston.Asthepistonis
fyingprinciple.Afteraperiodofnearlyfifteenyears
pulled out, there is more empty space (more vac-
ofdormancy,stringtheoryexplodedontothescene
uum),whichmeansthatmoreenergyhasbeencre-
in the mid-1980s, when a number of calculations
ated. This energy had to come from somewhere,
showedthatthisapproachmadeaveryspecialsetof
namely from whatever it was that was pulling the
predictions about the basic symmetries of nature.27
piston.Thismeansthatthepistonwillexperiencea
This raised expectations that further study of string
force (equal to the extra vacuum energy inside
theory would yield a unique theory of everything,
divided by the distance the piston moved) tending
onethatpredictedall constantsofnatureandprop-
to pull it back in. In other words, the false vacuum
erties of elementary particles from a single grand
exhibits tension as well as energy. Furthermore, to
equation.
conserveenergythistensionmustbeequalinmag-
nitudetotheenergycontainedinanygivenregion. However, as string theory was scrutinized by
It is this last property that makes the false vacuum large numbers of theorists, more generalizations
so unusual. When the gravitational effects of this were found instead of more mathematical restric-
kind of energy are taken into account, it causes tions, making the unique theory of everything that
space to expand exponentially rapidly. A false vac- muchmoreelusive.Furthercalculationscarriedout
144 PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith