Read on or return to my homepage

Society has been a point for hundreds of years where two very powerful forces are extremely influential and often conflicting in the world. Excluding the power of politics and government, religion and science both have dominated man's thoughts and actions. But the question arises as to which, religion or science, is more influential over one another? Here, I will argue that science is more influential over religion, and that religion looks to science to prove itself. Obviously many people will hold strong convictions over which one is right. Many people argue that science has all the answers, and many people argue that religion has all the answers. But I will attempt to convince you that religion and science are both separate with each serving its own purpose. Though some people feel the need to entwine the two to answer the basic questions of unknown, they should be separate. Religion should answer questions of why while science, on the other hand, should confront the questions of how. Religion has its purpose, and science has its own purpose. Questions such as those that follow should not be handled in both religion and science, but should only be accounted for in one of the two: Was there a beginning to the universe? Will there be an end? What is the purpose of the world, and so on? These questions lead to the Anthropic Teleological argument against the oscillating universe theory. Is God the Creator of the Universe or has the universe always been? It has always been.

Bored? Return to my homepage

Part 1: Science and Religion Is One More Dominant Over the Other?
Theology, mainly that of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslin faith, have received a great impact from the developments of the sciences, especially physics, over the years. Proof of this can be seen by taking a brief look of The Impact of the Development of Physics on the Development of Theology by David E. Schrader. In this unpublished manual, Schrader shows how breakthroughs in the sciences, and particularly physics, throughout the years have had an influence on religion and theology. According to Schrader, the effect of physics influencing religion can be divided into four periods:
"1) from around the middle of the second century of the common era to around the middle of the thirteenth century; 2) from the thirteenth century to the sixteenth century; 3) from the seventeenth century through the nineteenth century; and 4) the twentieth century." (Schrader, 3)
The first of these periods, the period of "Christian Platonism," traced its roots back to the writings of Plato. The second period can be traced to the writings of Aristotle. The third period begins with the publication of Newton's Principia, and finally the forth period draws on the development of Quantum Mechanics and relativity. (Schrader, 3-8) An in-depth look into each of these areas in beyond the scope of this paper, but a brief look into the influence over religion will be shown.
The first period of Christian theology covered about twelve centuries where science was not very exact and "fail[ed] to meet the standards required for genuine knowledge." (Schrader, 17) This was a time where those who were "intellectually curious" pondered the world and its reasons for existing. The main philosopher to influence this period was Plato and the writing that follows is the basis for Christian development over the its first period. Plato writes in his Timaeus his cosmological speculation,
That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state, but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. ... As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If, then, Socrates, amidst the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether an in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough if we adduce the probabilities as likely as any others, for we must remember that I who am the speaker and you who are the judges are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and inquire no further. [(27d-28a, and 29c- d), (cited in Schrader, 18)]
This leads to the three basic points of early theology. "Everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created." (Timaeus, 28a) Second, "What creates becoming must be something in being" and finally, "That which creates nature must be some form of intelligence." (Schrader, 19) These thoughts, even though they were not scientific in the sense we hold the word today, gave to the beginning of Christian theology.
The second period was much under the influence of the writings of Aristotle, especially in his Physics. Aristotle's Physics was not available to the Christian thinkers until around the middle of the twelfth century when it was translated into Latin. Following is a brief account given by Schrader of Aristotle's central points.
1) Motion involves the transformation of an underlying thing, T, from condition, c1, to its contrary condition, c2.
2) There are four kinds of cause: material, formal, efficient, and final.
3) "It is the business of the physicist to know about them all."
4) Space and time are dependent on the things or changes that occupy them.
5) "Everything that is in motion must be moved by something." 6) Motion is eternal.
7) There is a first unmoved mover.
8) The most fundamental motion is circular motion. (Schrader, 33)
These points form the basis of the Christian thought in this time period which had now shifted from Plato's thought to those of Aristotle.
The next major step in the change of religion takes place with the publishing of Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. By this time, Aristotle's influence had broken down. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo had all hit theology hard. But, Newton's new system of physics was the key player in replacing Aristotle. To make this short Newton's views on physics, in essence, greatly influenced religion. Christians primarily hit Aristotle's physics, and in the process hit his theology. Newton set space and time as co-eternal with God, thus falling in line with the Bible. It provided for a void where God could exist before his creation of the world and further led to the conclusion that "God's creation is in time." (Schrader, 57)
Finally, the twentieth century with its development of Quantum Mechanics and relativity brought forth a period where science is fragmented in which one set of laws works under one situation and another set works under another situation. No unified theory exists now, but even so these new developments have led to change the theology of some people. In essence, this condensed and brief outline shows that development in the sciences influences religious thought. It is not to say that the science controls religion, but more correct to say the religion looks to science to prove itself or at least to provide some basic models.

Still Reading? Return to my homepage
Different Spheres.
In this section, I want to stress the importance of separating religion and science. The distinction needs to be understood that science asks how things happen and that religion asks why things happen. The question of "How do I walk across the street?" is very different than the question of "Why do I walk across the street?" These two question, even though they have answers that can be close in meaning, have a distinct difference. I walk across the street by moving my legs and shifting my weight forward, hence answering the question of how. This is a scientific answer. Now, to the question of why. I move across the street to get to the other side. This answers the question why which can be related to religion. Therefor, there is a difference which lies in the phrasing and meaning of each question.
Each, religion and science, has its own course of questioning. These two courses should not cross. One needs to separate religion and science. I am not arguing that one has to choose either religion or science to follow, but that each can coexist separately in one's mind. For example a research scientist can be also be a good Christian even with conflicts in some scientific beliefs against religious beliefs. Yet, I do concede that they both search for the truth.
Next the question arises of whether either one, science or religion, holds all of the right answers. I think that this is not a valid question, for religion has its own realm which is separate from science. I think that religion provides merely a groundwork for socialization within societies, and also sets a moral code for societies. Religion is the basis for teaching moral codes which are seen in most all cultures in the world. Religion can also be seen as being a controller of the masses to keep everyone under control. The fear of God is a mighty force. Further, religion requires mystery. In other words, where there is mystery there is ignorance. Hence, where there is mystery, there you can find God offered as an explanation to fill this void of ignorance. Prehistoric humans invented gods to answer the mysteries of nature, and invented religions. Now the question of "What is mystery's mortal enemy?" The answer is science. Every time science clears up a mystery and explains the unexplainable, a little of religion's realm is taken from it. Each time science pushes the boundaries of our ignorance back a little, God has less territory in the human mind to roam.
Ultimately, religion should hold people to their moral obligations to society. It should also be a framework for socialization, and religion should also be a force for faith and mystery. It should answer the questions of why. Science, on the other hand, should answer the question of how and it should clear up mysteries. The two should not go hand in hand for this leads to unnecessary conflict.

You kept reading? Return to my homepage


Part 2: Oscillating Universe Theory versus the Cosmological and Anthropic Teleological Arguments
After taking a brief look at the relationship that physics and religion have had, I will show to theories of the beginning of the universe. Both are heavily influenced by science, yet only one supports a God.

Oscillating Universe Theory: First of all the oscillating universe theory is the Big Bang theory of expansion with an infinite number of cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe. This theory needs no necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in the past. Matter has always been and always will be. The event of creation becomes irrelevant. Our existence is attributed to one lucky expansion where chance produced all the conditions necessary to convert particles and atoms into human beings through strictly natural processes. The oscillation model proposes that all the mass in the universe will eventually be forced to re-collapse into another "Cosmic Egg" which explodes time and time again. Hence, there is no beginning and there is no end. There is no need for a supreme being.

Anthropic Teleological Arguments:
L. Stafford Betty and Bruce Cordell argue that various features of the universe suggest that God exists in their anthropic teleological argument. First, they suggest that there must have been an intelligent designer to create the universe out of the Big Bang. The universe is described by a grand universal theory that is too complex not to develop other than by design of a supernatural power. They support the anthropic principle in that the universe must have those properties which allow life to develop because there exists one possible universe designed with the goal of generating and sustaining life. If there was any deviation from the properties and constants of our universe, then life would not have existed. They explain that all these constants are too exact to be random. There must have been a creator. The two of them further state that the possibility of life beginning randomly is too improbable and that there must have been some controlling factor, a God. Finally, they feel that a divine creator is better than any evolutionary process, and that the significantly greater cannot come from the significantly less. To do so would go against entropy. (Peterson, et al; 198-210)

Argument Against the Anthropic Teleological Arguments:
There are many problems with the Anthropic Teleological Argument. The first, is pointed out by Carr and Rees that life could have evolved differently from life as we know it. It may not have been based on carbon and water as we are. Second, there is a possibility, no matter how absurd, that there are an infinite number of universes that co-exist. This is the many worlds theory.
Another argument is held by John A. Wheeler. He thinks that an a quantum phenomenon does not exist until it is observed. Instruments are necessary to observe and to verify things that are too small or too far away for the human senses. For example a photon exists as either a wave or a particle. Depending on what instrument one uses, the photon will be shown as either of particle or a wave. Imagine a star at five million light years away. A photon leaves that star and travels for five million years to an instrument of observation. Depending on what instrument is used to observe the photon, the photon is created when leaving the star as either a wave or a particle. Hence, I have reached back in time 5 million years to determine the existence of the photon. But, how does this damage the Anthropic Teleological Argument? Basically, "If we are capable of creating the experimental outcome that we desire, the next logical step is to suggest that scientists in some way create the basic concepts of physics" that the Anthropic Teleological Argument is based on. (Peterson, Hasker, Reichenbach, and Basinger; 204) Our world is based on what we observe it to be, yet there could be other worlds out there that we cannot observe.
After discussing other people's arguments, I'll now turn to my own. The first point I wish to argue against is that there had to be a creator of the Big Bang. With the Oscillating Universe Theory the Big Bang is a continuous cycle of events that repeat indefinitely. Big Bang, expansion and cooling, contraction, single point existence and back again to the Big Bang. There is no first mover in this cycle, and hence no God. This event continues to repeat itself forever.
The next point I wish to argue, is the point that the universe was set up to allow life to exist. Obviously, with an infinite number of expansions and contractions, there will be a point in which all the properties for life to exist happen by chance. Yet, it may not be the type of life that we all are familiar with. Further, the point that if there was any deviation from the properties and constants of our universe, then life would not have existed is totally false. It is true that life as we know it might not have existed. But, if our form of life evolved, then why could not another form of life evolve?
In essence, I concede that the subject I have chosen to argue for is a very broad subject and it delves into twentieth century physics, which as I mentioned before is not wholly unified theory. We are living in a time when much of what we are beginning to discover about physics is very controversial. It seems that for every theory raised in physics, a counter theory soon follows, just as in religion. So, in conclusion it is best to keep an open mind while researching these new theories.

Aristotle, Physics.
  Newton, Principia.
Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.
Peterson, Michael et al., Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). Plato, Timaeus.
Schrader, E. David, Unpublished Manual: The Impact of the development of Physics on the Development of Theology.


I'm amazed. You made it! Return to my homepage