Science and Religion

Putting God Back in the Universe? The first debate concerns the anthropic principle. Over the centuries, scientists have learned to view the universe largely independent of human bias. We no longer project our human prejudices and whims onto every scientific discovery. Historically, however, early scientists often committed the fallacy of anthropomorphism, which assumes that objects and animals have humanlike qualities. This error is committed by anyone who sees human emotions and feelings being exhibited by their pets. (It is also committed by Hollywood scriptwriters who regularly assume that beings similar to us must populate planets orbiting the stars in the heavens.) Anthropomorphism is an age-old problem. The Ionian philosopher Xenophanes once lamented, "Men imagine gods to be born, and to have clothes and voices and shapes like theirs.... Yea, the gods of the Ethiopians are black and flat-nosed, and the gods of the Thracians are red-haired and blue-eyed." Within the past few decades, some cosmologists have been horrified to find anthropomorphism creeping back into science, under the guise of the anthropic principle, some of whose advocates openly declare that they would like to put God back into science. Actually, there is some scientific merit to this strange debate over the anthropic principle, which revolves around the indisputable fact that if the physical constants of the universe were altered by the smallest amount, life in the universe would be impossible. Is this remarkable fact Just a fortunate coincidence, or does it show the work of some Supreme Being? There are two versions of the anthropic principle. The 'weak" version states that the fact that intelligent life (us) exists in the universe should be taken as an experimental fact that helps us understand the constants of the universe. As Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg explains it, "the world is the way it is, at least in part, because otherwise there would be no one to ask why it is the way it is." Stated in this way, the weak version of the anthropic principle is hard to argue with. To have life in the universe, you need a rare conjunction of many coincidences. Life, which depends on a variety of complex biochemical reactions, can easily be rendered impossible if we change some of the constants of chemistry and physics by a small amount. For example, if the constants that govern nuclear physics were changed even slightly, then nucleosynthesis and the creation of the heavy elements in the stars and supernovae might become impossible. Then atoms might become unstable or impossible to create in supernovae. Life depends on the heavy elements (elements beyond iron) for the creation of DNA and protein molecules. Thus the smallest change in nuclear physics would make the heavy elements of the universe impossible to manufacture in the stars. We are children of the stars; however, if the laws of nuclear physics change in the slightest, then our "parents" are incapable of having "children" (us). As another example, it is safe to say that the creation of life in the early oceans probably took 1 to 2 billion years. However, if we could somehow shrink the lifetime of the proton to several million years, then life would be impossible. There would not be enough time to create life out of random collisions of molecules. In other words, the very fact that we exist in the universe to ask these questions about it means that a complex sequence of events must necessarily have happened. It means that the physical constants of nature must have a certain range of values, so that the stars lived long enough to create the heavy elements in our bodies, so that protons don't decay too rapidly before life has a chance to germinate, and so on. In other words, the existence of humans who can ask questions about the universe places a huge number of rigid constraints on the physics of the universe-for example, its age, its chemical composition, its temperature, its size, and its physical processes. Remarking on these cosmic coincidences, physicist Freeman Dyson once wrote, "As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming." This takes us to the "strong" version of the anthropic principle, which states that all the physical constants of the universe have been precisely chosen (by God or some Supreme Being) so that life is possible in our universe. The strong version, because it raises questions about a deity, is much more controversial among scientists. Conceivably, it might have been blind luck if only a few constants of nature were required to assume certain values to make life possible. However, it appears that a large set of physical constants must assume a narrow band of values in order for life to form in our universe. Since accidents of this type are highly improbable, perhaps a divine intelligence (God) precisely chose those values in order to create life. When scientists first hear of some version of the anthropic principle, they are immediately taken aback. Physicist Heinz Pagels recalled, "Here was a form of reasoning completely foreign to the usual way that theoretical physicists went about their business. "2 The anthropic argument is a more sophisticated version of the old argument that God located the earth at just the right distance from the sun. If God had placed the earth too close, then it would be too hot to support life. If God had placed the earth too far, then it would be too cold. The fallacy of this argument is that millions of planets in the galaxy probably are sitting at the incorrect distance from their sun, and therefore life on them is impossible. However, some planets will, by pure accident, be at the right distance from their sun. Our planet is one of them, and hence we are here to discuss the question. Eventually, most scientists become disillusioned with the anthropic principle because it has no predictive power, nor can it be tested. Pagels reluctantly concluded that "unlike the principles of physics, it affords no way to determine whether it is right or wrong; there is no way to test it. Unlike conventional physical principles, the anthropic principle is not subject to experimental falsification-the sure sign that it is not a scientific principle."3 Physicist Alan Guth says bluntly, "Emotionally, the anthropic principle kind of rubs me the wrong way.... The anthropic principle is something that people do if they can't think of anything better to do."4 To Richard Feynman, the goal of a theoretical physicist is to "prove yourself wrong as fast as possible." However, the anthropic principle is sterile and cannot be disproved. Or, as Weinberg said, "although science is clearly impossible without scientists, it is not clear that the universe is impossible without science."6 The debate over the anthropic principle (and hence, about God) was dormant for many years, until it was recently revived by Hawking's wave function of the universe. If Hawking is correct, then indeed there are an infinite number of parallel universes, many with different physical constants. In some of them, perhaps protons decay too rapidly, or stars cannot manufacture the heavy elements beyond iron, or the Big Crunch takes place too rapidly before life can begin, and so on. In fact, an infinite number of these parallel universes are dead, without the physical laws that can make life as we know it possible. On one such parallel universe (ours), the laws of physics were compatible with life as we know it. The proof is that we are here today to discuss the matter. If this is true, then perhaps God does not have to be evoked to explain why life, precious as it is, is possible in our universe. However, this reopens the possibility of the weak anthropic principle-that is, that we coexist with many dead universes, and that ours is the only one compatible with life. The second controversy stimulated by Hawking's wave function of the universe is much deeper and in fact is still unresolved. It is called the Schrödinger's cat problem. Science and Religion Because the hyperspace theory has opened up new, profound links between physics and abstract mathematics, some people have accused scientists of creating a new theology based on mathematics; that is, we have rejected the mythology of religion, only to embrace an even stranger religion based on curved space-time, particle symmetries, and cosmic expansions. While priests may chant incantations in Latin that hardly anyone understands, physicists chant arcane superstring equations that even fewer understand. The "faith" in an all-powerful God is now replaced by "faith" in quantum theory and general relativity. When scientists protest that our mathematical incantations can be checked in the laboratory, the response is that Creation cannot be measured in the laboratory, and hence these abstract theories like the superstring can never be tested. This debate is not new. Historically, scientists have often been asked to debate the laws of nature with theologians. For example, the great British biologist Thomas Huxley was the foremost defender of Darwin's theory of natural selection against the church's criticisms in the late nineteenth century. Similarly, quantum physicists have appeared on radio debates with representatives of the Catholic Church concerning whether the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle negates free will, a question that may determine whether our souls will enter heaven or hell. But scientists usually are reluctant to engage in theological debates about God and Creation. One problem, I have found, is that "God" means many things to many people, and the use of loaded words full of unspoken, hidden symbolism only clouds the issue. To clarify this problem somewhat, I have found it useful to distinguish carefully between two types of meanings for the word God. It is sometimes helpful to differentiate between the God of Miracles and the God of Order. When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein's early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe. His life's calling, he would say, was to ferret out his thoughts, to determine whether he had any choice in creating the universe. Einstein repeatedly referred to this God in his writings, fondly calling him "the Old Man." When stumped with an intractable mathematical problem, he would often say, "God is subtle, but not malicious." Most scientists, it is safe to say, believe that there is some form of cosmic Order in the universe. However, to the nonscientist, the word God almost universally refers to the God of Miracles, and this is the source of miscommunication between scientists and nonscientists. The God of Miracles intervenes in our affairs, performs miracles, destroys wicked cities, smites enemy armies, drowns the Pharaoh's troops, and avenges the pure and noble. If scientists and nonscientists fail to communicate with each other over religious questions, it is because they are talking past each other, referring to entirely different Gods. This is because the foundation of science is based on observing reproducible events, but miracles, by definition, are not reproducible. They happen only once in a lifetime, if at all. Therefore, the God of Miracles is, in some sense, beyond what we know as science. This is not to say that miracles cannot happen, only that they are outside what is commonly called science. Biologist Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University has puzzled over this question and asked whether there is any scientific reason why humans cling so fiercely to their religion. Even trained scientists, he found, who are usually perfectly rational ahout their scientific specialization, lapse into irrational arguments to defend their religion. Furthermore, he observes, religion has been used historically as a cover to wage hideous wars and perform unspeakable atrocities against infidels and heathens. The sheer ferocity of religious or holy wars, in fact, rivals the worst crime that any human has ever committed against any other. Religion, notes Wilson, is universally found in every human culture ever studied on earth. Anthropologists have found that all primitive tribes have an "origin" myth that explains where they came from. Furthermore, this mythology sharply separates "us" from "them," provides a cohesive (and often irrational) force that preserves the tribe, and supresses divisive criticism of the leader. This is not an aberration, but the norm of human society. Religion, Wilson theorizes, is so prevalent because it provided a definite evolutionary advantage for those early humans who adopted it. Wilson notes that animals that hunt in packs obey the leader because a pecking order based on strength and dominance has been established. But roughly 1 million years ago, when our apelike ancestors gradually became more intelligent, individuals could rationally begin to question the power of their leader. Intelligence, by its very nature, questions authority by reason, and hence could be a dangerous, dissipative force on the tribe. Unless there was a force to counteract this spreading chaos, intelligent individuals would leave the tribe, the tribe would fall apart, and all individuals would eventually die. Thus, according to Wilson, a selection pressure was placed on intelligent apes to suspend reason and blindly obey the leader and his myths, since doing otherwise would challenge the tribe's cohesion. Survival favored the intelligent ape who could reason rationally about tools and food gathering, but also favored the one who could suspend that reason when it threatened the tribe's integrity. A mythology was needed to define and preserve the tribe. To Wilson, religion was a very powerful, life-preserving force for apes gradually becoming more intelligent, and formed a "glue" that held them together. If correct, this theory would explain why so many religions rely on "faith" over common sense, and why the flock is asked to suspend reason. It would also help to explain the inhuman ferocity of religious wars, and why the God of Miracles always seems to favor the victor in a bloody war. The God of Miracles has one powerful advantage over the God of Order. The God of Miracles explains the mythology of our purpose in the universe; on this question, the God of Order is silent.