COSMOS, BIOS, THEOS

COSMOS, BIOS, THEOS

..........
Scientists Reflect on Science, God,
and the Origins of the Universe,
Life, and Homo sapiens

EDITED BY

Henry Margenau

Roy Abraham Varghese

Open* Court
La Salle, Illinois
OPEN COURT and the above logo are registered in the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

©1992 by Open Court Publishing Company

Fmit printing 1992

5eaJnd printing 1993

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the
prior written permission of the publisher, Open Court
Publishing Company, La Salle, Illinois 61301.

Printed and bound in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cosmos, bios, theos : scientists reflect on science,

God, and the origins of the universe, life, and
homo sapiens / edited by Henry Margenau,
Roy Abraham Varghese.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8126-9185-7. - ISBN 0-8126-9186-5 (pbk.)
1. Science-Philosophy. 2. Religion and science-
1946- 3. Scientists-Attitudes. I. Margenau,
Henry, 1901- II. Varghese, Roy Abraham.
QI 75.3.C68 1992
215-dc20 92-7685
CIP
CONTENTS

Preface xiii
Introduction/Roy Abraham Varghese 1

PART ONE
Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists 27

1 Who Arranged for These Laws to Cooperate So Well? 28

Professor Wrich Becker, CERN, Geneva, and Department of
Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2 The Origin of the Universe Is, and Always Will Be, a
Mystery 31
Professor Stuart Bowyer, Department of Astronomy, University of
California, Berkeley
3 Appeal to God May Be Required to Answer the Origin
Question 33
Professor Geoffrey F. Chew, Dean of Physical Sciences, University
of California, Berkeley
4 How Is It Possible to Exclude Action Coming from a
Transcendent Order of Being 37
Professor Alexandre Favre, Insitut de Mecanique Statistique de la
Turbulence, Universiti d'Aix-Marseille
5 Where Matter and Consciousness Came from Is
Unknown 40
Professor f ohn Erik Fornaess, Department of Mathematics,
Princeton University
6 God Is a Characteristic of the Real Universe 42
Professor Conyers Herring, Department of Physics, Stanford
University
7 What Forces Filled the Universe with Energy Fifteen Billion
Years Ago? 45
Professor Robert f astrow, Goddard Institute of Space Studies and
Dartmouth College
vi Contents

8 There Need Be No Ultimate Conflict between Science and

Religion 50
Professor B.D. Josephson, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge
University
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1973
9 The Exquisite Order of the Physical World Calls for the
Divine 51
Professor Vera Kistiakowsky, Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
10 Was It Planned, Is It Part of a Grander Scheme of Things? 54
Professor William A. Little, Department of Physics, Stanford
University
11 The Laws of Nature Are Created by God 57
Professor Henry Margenau, Emeritus Eugene Higgins Professor of
Physics and Natural Philosophy, Yale University
12 Science Will Never Give Us the Answers to All Our
Questions 64
Professor Sir Nevill Mott, Department of Physics, Cambridge
University
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1977
13 Religion and Science Both Proceed from Acts of Faith 70
Professor Robert A. Naumann, Department of Physics, Princeton
University
14 Our Final Ineptitude at Producing a Rational Explanation of
the Universe 73
Professor Louis Neel, Director, Center for Nuclear Studies, Grenoble
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1970
15 A Feeling of Great Surprise That There Is Anything 75
Professor Edward Nelson, Department of Mathematics, Princeton
University
16 Creation Is Supported by All the Data So Far 78
Dr. Arno Penzias, Vice-President, Research, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1978
17 Science Asks What and How, While Religion Asks Why 84
Professor John G. Phillips, Department of Astronomy, University of
California, Berkeley
 Contenls vii

18 Temporal Origin and Ontological Origin 86

Professor /ohn Polkinghorne, Dean, Trinity Hall, Cambridge
University
19 I Have Difficulty Accepting that Matter Has Been in Existence
Forever 89
Professor /ohn A. Russell, Department of Astronomy, University of
Southern California
20 Science and Religion: Reflections on Transcendence and
Secularization 93
Professor A bdus Salam, Director, Centre for Theoretical Physics,
Trieste, and President, Third World Academy of Sciences
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1979
21 One Must Ask Why and Not Just How 105
Professor Arthur Schawlow, Department of Physics, Stanford
University
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1981
22 The Origin of the Universe Does Not Seem to Me to Be a
Scientific Question 108
Professor Emilio Segre, Department of Physics, University of
California, Berkeley
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1959
23 The Universe Is Ultimately to Be Explained in Terms of a
Metacosmic Reality 111
Professor Wolfgang Smith, Department of Mathematics, Oregon
State University
24 The Guidance of Evolution Lets God Appear to Us in Many
Guises 119
Professor Walter Thirring, Institute for Theoretical Physics, Austria
25 The Question of Origin Seems Unanswered if We Explore
from a Scientific View Alone 122
Professor Charles H. Townes, Department of Physics, University
of California, Berkeley
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1%4
26 The Origin of the Universe Can Be Described Scientifically as
a Miracle 125
Professor Herbert Uhlig, Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
viii Contenls

27 There Is a Bohr Complementarity between Science and

Religion 127
Professor Victor Weisskopf, Department of Physics, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
28 The Origin of Time Is Not in Time 128
Professor C. F. von Weizsacker, Max Planck Institute, Stamberg
29 The Origin of the Universe Is a Disturbing Mystery for
Science 131
Professor Eugene Wigner, Department of Physics, Princeton
University
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1963
30 The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics Are Under
God's Power 133
Professor Shoichi Yoshikawa, Plasma Physics Laboratory,
Princeton University

PART TWO
Biologists and Chemists 137

1 There Exists an Incomprehensible Power with Limitless

Foresight and Knowledge 138
Professor Christian B. Anfinsen, Department of Biology, The Johns
Hopkins University
Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1972
2 The Existence of a Creator Represents a Satisfactory
Solution 141
Professor Werner Arber, Department of Microbiology, University of
Basel
Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, 1978
3 The Ultimate Truth Is God 144
Professor D. H. R. Barton, Department of Chemistry, Texas A & M
University
Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1969
4 The Mechanism of the World and the Why of It 149
Professor Steven L. Bernasek, Department of Chemistry, Princeton
University
 Contents ix

5 The Origin of Life Seems Lost in the Details of Prebiotic

Chemistry 152
Professor Hans /. Bremmermann, Department of Biophysics,
University of California, Berkeley
6 The Entropic versus the Anthropic Principle 155
Professor Friedrich Cramer, Director, Max Planck Institute for
Experimental Medicine, Gottingen
7 How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and
Organizing Force? 157
Dr. R Merle d'Aubigne, Surgeon and Member of the Academy of
Sciences, Paris
8 A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins 160
Sir John Eccles, Switzerland
Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, 1963
9 Religion and Science Neither Exclude nor Prove One
Another 165
Professor Manfred Eigen, Max Planck Institute for Biophysical
Chemistry, Gottingen
Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1967
10 The Creative Process May Well Be What We Observe, Deduce,
and Call Evolution 166
Professor Thomas C. Emmel, Department of Biology, University of
Florida
11 At Some Stage in Evolution, God Created the Human
Soul 172
Professor P. C. C. Garnham, Department of Pure and Applied
Biology, Imperial College, United Kingdom
12 A Spirit Which Has Established the Universe and Its
Laws 174
Professor Roger/. Gautheret, Department of Cell Biology, Faculty
of Sciences, Paris
13 I Have a Religious Attitude toward the Unknown 177
Professor Ragnar Granit, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm
Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, 1967
14 I Consider the Existence of God as Unknowable 179
Professor Robert W. Holley, Salk Institute
Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, 1968
X Con Ien ts

15 I Have No Way of Knowing Whether God Exists 181

Professor Jerome Karle, Naval Research Laboratory, Department of
the Navy
Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1985
16 A Religious Impulse Guides Our Motive in Sustaining
Scientific Inquiry 184
Professor Joshua Lederberg, President, Rockefeller University
Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, 1958
17 New Visions of the Cosmos 185
Professor Clifford N. Matthews, Department of Chemistry,
University of Illinois, Chicago
18 Nobel Prize Winners Are Not More Competent about
God 187
Professor Vladimir Prelog, Laboratory of Organic Chemistry, ETH,
Zurich
Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1975
19 The Universe Started from an Instability in the Quantum
Vacuum 188
Professor flya Progogine, Director, Solvay International Institute of
Physics and Chemistry, Brussels
Nobel Prize for Chemistry, 1977
20 It Is Probably Impossible to Explain a Miracle with Physics
and Chemistry 193
Professor Tadeus Reichstein, Institute for Organic Chemistry,
University of Basel
Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, 1950
21 I Have Very Little in the Way of Belief in a Concrete
God 194
Professor Frederick C. Robbins, Department of Epidemiology and
Biostatistics, Case Western Reserve University
Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, 1954
22 The Piling of Coincidence on Coincidence 197
Professor Jay Roth, Department of Cell and Molecular Biology,
University of Connecticut, Storrs
23 Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by
Chance 202
Professor Harry Rubin, Department of Molecular Biology,
University of California, Berkeley
 Con1en1s xi

24 Religion Is a Concern of the Human Spirit 204

Professor H. G. Schlegel, Institute for Microbiology, University of
Gottingen
25 In a Scientific Sense, We Know Very Little on the Origin of
Life 206
Professor Robert Shapiro, Department of Chemistry, New York
University
26 I Do Not See How Science Can Shed Light on the Origins of
Design 209
Professor George Snell, Jackson Laboratory, Maine
Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, 1980
27 A Deeper Connectivity than the Mechanical Models of Our
Current World View May Comprehend 212
Professor Jeffrey Steinfeld, Department of Chemistry,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
28 The Existence of Some Creative Impulse at the Very
Beginning 214
Professor Janos Szentagothai, Department of Anatomy, Semmelweis
University Medical School, Budapest
29 Life and Mind in the Universe 218
Professor George Wald, Biological Laboratories of Harvard
University
Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, 1967
30 I Don't See How We Can Gather Empirical Evidence about
How the Natural Order Itself Came into Being 220
Professor Ward Watt, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford
University

. . . . .PART THREE
.....
The Existence of God and the Origin of the Universe: A
Debate between an Atheist and a Theist 225
1 The Existence of the Universe as a Pointer to the Existence of
God 226
Professor H. D. Lewis, Gifford Lecturer
2 Why the Existence of God Is Not Required to Explain the
Existence of the Universe 236
Professor Antony Flew, Gifford Lecturer
xii Contents

3 Response to Flew 239

Professor H. D. Lewis
4 Response to Lewis 241
Professor Antony Flew
5 Comment on Lewis and Flew 243
Professor Hugo Meynell, Department of Religious Studies,
University of Calgary
6 One Word More 248
Professor Antony Flew
7 Another Word More 250
Professor Hugo Meynell
8 Concluding Comment 251
Professor H. D. Lewis

PART FOUR
Concluding Scientific Postscripts 253

1 The Origin of the Universe in Science and Religion 254

Professor William R Stoeger, University of San Francisco/Vatican
Obseroatory
2 Relativity, Quantum Theory, and the Mystery of Life 270
Professor Eugene Wigner, Princeton University

GLOSSARY 279

INDEX 281
PREFACE

Cosmos, Bios, Theos is a portfolio of perspectives on the

relationship between the scientific enterprise and the relig-
ious view of reality. Contributors include over twenty Nobel
Prize winners and distinguished scientists from different
disciplines. In this anthology, they reflect on the origins of the
universe, life, and Homo sapiens, on science and religion, and on
the existence of God.
Cosmos, Bios, Theos makes no pretension to being a statisti-
cally significant survey of the religious beliefs of modern
scientists. The scientists interviewed for this anthology are,
for the most part, known to be theistic or at least sympathetic
to a religious view of reality. For this reason, it must be clearly
understood that the book does not purport to show that most
or even many scientists are theists. In point of fact, there are
many modern scientists who are atheists actively opposed to
any form of religion. Moreover, a number of the contributors
to this anthology make it clear that they are simply uninter-
ested in religion.
Notwithstanding these caveats, the contributions in this
collection are significant in their own right. In the first place,
the idea thatan eminent scientist would affirm the existence
of God on rational grounds does at least pique one's curios-
ity-especially in view of the popular assumption that
religious belief is an anachronism or an aberration in the Age
of Science. Secondly, this inquiry into the interface between
science and religion is a continuation of a quest begun by
some of the great pioneeers of modern science. Co-editor
Henry Margenau notes that "several modern scientists and
scientific theories have been surprisingly sympathetic to
religious issues. I recall that my late teachers/colleagues/
friends, Einstein, Schrodinger, and Heisenberg, who were all
distinguished scientists, had a passionate interest in religious
questions". Finally, the metascientific implications of recent
developments in science have inspired a spurt of popular
quasi-theological works by contemporary scientists. Exam-
ples include Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, Paul

xiii
xiv Preface

Davies's God and the New Physics and The Cosmic Blueprint, John
Leslie's Universes, Robert Jastrow's God and the Astronomers, and
several others. The issues addressed in these works certainly
deserve further exploration.
All but a few of the contributions to Cosmos, Bios, Theos are
responses to the six questions below:
I What do you think should be the relationship between
religion and science?
2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a
scientific and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical
level?
3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific
level and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?
5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin
questions, specifically the origin of the universe and the
origin of life?
6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and
Planck-have considered the concept of God very
seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God
and on the existence of God?
The pieces by Sir John Eccles, Professor Robert Jastrow,
and Professor Brian Josephson are transcripts of interviews
they had with co-editor Roy Abraham Varghese. Professors
Clifford Matthews, Sir Nevill Mott, Arno Penzias, Abdus
Salam, and George Wald submitted full length essays in
response to the six questions.
While an anthology of this nature can hardly hope to give
"equal time" for all contending points of view, it does contain
a spirited debate on the existence of God between the well-
known atheist Antony Flew and prominent philosopher of
religon H. D. Lewis. This debate is important in defining and
clarifying the origin questions as they relate to the existence of
God. The debate between Flew and Lewis is followed by an
essay on origins in science and religion by Professor William
Stoeger. The anthology ends with a paper by Professor
Eugene Wigner on relativity, quantum theory, and the mys-
tery of life.
INTRODUCTION
Roy Abraham Varghese

I have never found a better expression than "religious" for this trust
in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the
human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an
uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital
out of this. There is no remedy for that.
-Albert Einstein 1
Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rational-
ity or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a
higher order.... This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling,
in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience,
represents my conception of God.
-Albert Einstein2
There can never be any real opposition between religion and science;
for the one is the complement of the other.
-Max Planck3
In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has
repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled
with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now
convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have
never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as
simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind,
a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course ofmy
life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship
of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt
the reality of that to which they point.
-Werner Heisenberg4
Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the devel-
opment of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the
question why.... If we find the answer to that, it would be the
ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would know the
mind of God.
-Stephen Hawking5
2 Introduction

Stranger than the strangest concepts and theories of science is

the appearance of God on the intellectual horizon of late
twentieth-century science. Pioneers and giants of modern
science like Einstein, Planck, and Heisenberg were equally at
home with the "hard facts" of science and with a theological
frame of reference (as evidenced by their statements above). The
paradox persists to this very day. Einstein once said "I want to
know how God created this world .... I want to know His
thoughts, the rest are details"6; Stephen Hawking, the theoretical
physicist who is often described as Einstein's successor, has
declared in his recent bestseller, A Brief History of Time, that our
goal should be to "know the mind of God''.7 And astrophysicist
Robert Jastrow begins God and the Astronomers, his celebrated sur-
vey of modern cosmology, with a remarkable observation: "For
the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the
story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of igno-
rance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself
over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who
have been sitting there for centuries".s

The Scientific Enterprise as a Religious View of Reality

The scientific enterprise is fundamentally a quest for an explana-
tion of "what is" in terms of relations and laws, principles and
patterns. "Explanation" here is understood as the "how" and the
"why" of the "what", where the "why" is not necessarily a ques-
tion of purpose or goal but refers also to inquiries about the cause
of a state of affairs. "The aim of scientific research is not only to
discover and describe events and phenomena in the world but
also, and more importantly, to explain why these events and
phenomena occur as they do". 9
This quest for an explanation of "what is" presupposes not
only that there is an explanation (or explanations) for the objects
of scientific inquiry but that (a) reality is intelligible, accessible to
the human mind, and (b) reality is rational, conforming to at least
some a priori conceptions of rationality.
The significance of the intelligibility and rationality of reality
must be further explicated. If science is to "work", the universe
must be intelligible in the sense that we can, in principle, come to
know it. And, as Professor Hugo Meynell notes, "We must be in
principle capable of recognising the truth before we reach it, if we
are ever to recognise it as such when we do so. Could scientists
 Roy Abraham Varghese 3

ever have achieved the knowledge of the world which they now
have, except on this assumption, which has very seldom been
effectively doubted-the qualification is important-that the
framing of hypotheses and the testing of them against the evi-
dence of experience is the correct method of discovering what is
so about the world? And does not the fact that we know a priori
how to find out about things imply, short of idealism, a certain
corresponding nature and structure in things themselves?"JO
About the rationality presupposed and revealed by science,
Einstein said, "Whoever has undergone the intense experience of
successful advances in this domain (science) is moved by pro-
found reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence ...
the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence". 11
Neither intelligibility nor rationality are presuppositions in
the sense of hypotheses that are verified by continuing scientific
development, a point made with characteristic clarity by Freder-
ick Copleston, the great historian of philosophy:

The intelligibility of being is not a presupposition in the sense of

hypothesis. If it is called a presupposition, what is meant, or
ought to be meant, is that it is a condition of knowledge. It is not
a condition of which the mind must be aware before it knows
anything: it is simply a condition which must be fulfilled if we
are to know anything. That it is fulfilled is apprehended implic-
itly in the act of knowing anything. Explicit apprehension is due
to subsequent reflection.12

In the constant quest for explanations that ground the per-

ception of intelligibility and rationality, the human mind con-
fronts the challenge of explaining the existence of the universe.
'Why is there something rather than nothing?" asked Leib-
nizll-a "why" question that is just as mueh about ultimate ori-
gin as it is about ultimate purpose. The question is equally force-
ful whether the universe has trillions of galaxies or whether all
that exists is a grain of sand. How did it-the galaxies or the grain
of sand-get here? It is now in being. How and why was it
brought into being? Did it create itself? Or was it always here
with no beginning and, presumably, no end? But to say that it
always existed is still not an explanation of its exis!ence. It is,
rather, a putative, highly speculative description that is, by the
nature of the case, incapable of scientific verification (how is it
possible to prove that matter and energy have no beginning and
no end?). And a description is not an explanation. The assertion
4 lntroduclion

that the universe always existed is not, to my mind, an explana-

tion for this reason: even if we admit the assumption of an eter-
nally existing universe we are still left with the problem of
explaining and accounting for the phenomenon of an eternally
existing universe.
Science and scientists have not ignored the puzzle, and many
of the spectacular discoveries and theories of modem science are
by-products of the quest for an explanation of the existence of
the universe. By-products they may be, but they are clearly not
end-products. The mathematics and the mechanisms behind the
processes that culminated in the universe we inhabit have been
the objects of plausible and often fruitful speculation. But the
question of ultimate origin-an ultimate explanation for the
mathematics and the mechanisms-continues to elude and baf-
fle the most ingenious theorists. A review of influential contem-
porary cosmological models highlights the depth of the mystery.
The idea that matter and the universe are infinite in space
and time has been taken for granted for centuries by several
schools of thought. The postulate that matter is eternal cannot, of
course, be verified scientifically or proved philosophically. To be
tested scientifically, this hypothesis would require an experi-
ment of eternal duration (and it would have to assume without
proof that matter and energy are indestructible). And philosoph-
ically the hypothesis begs the bottom-line question: how did mat-
ter and the universe come into being? Such a question can be
addressed even with regard to an eternally existing universe,
because we want to know how it is that there is a universe with
the property of eternal existence. It is not enough to say that the
universe was always here and that we should not ask how it got
here or how, if it is eternal, the phenomenon of an eternally
existing universe can be explained. Why should we not ask these
questions? In any case, the notion that the universe has infinite
mass-a notion that, in its Euclidean form, was conclusively
exorcised from science by the General Theory of Relativity-
bristles with bizarre scientific consequences.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was a leap of genius
that all but created a universe-and with it modem scientific
cosmology-out of mere "matter in motion". The inspired con-
ceptions of gravity as geometry, of matter "curving" space, of
inferring both the total mass of the universe and the resultant
radius of curvature from the average density of matter and from
the gravitational constant, have all changed the course of mod-
 Roy Abraham Varghese 5

em science. This new understanding, in Hawking's words, "was

to revolutionize our view of the universe. The old idea of an
essentially unchanging universe that could have existed,. and
could continue to exist, forever was replaced by the notion of a
dynamic, expanding universe that seemed to have begun a finite
time ago, and that might end at a finite time in the future".1 4
Professor Stanley Jaki points out also that Einstein's "General
Relativity, the first consistently scientific treatment of the uni-
verse as the totality of gravitationally interacting entities, reas-
sured him in his previous instinctive conviction that the uni-
verse was real and fully rational". 15
One cosmological implication of General Relativity-an im-
plication that Einstein himself found disconcerting-was the
idea that the universe could not be static and must be either
expanding or contracting. By the late 1920s experimental and
theoretical evidence clearly pointed to an expanding universe.
Today, as a result of the equations of General Relativity, observa-
tional studies of galaxies receding from each other, the measure-
ment of the background radiation that fills space, and a host of
other phenomena, there is general acceptance of a Big Bang
model of the origin of the universe. ''Most scientists", writes
Heinz Pagels, "maintain that the univer5e evolved from a hot,
dense gas of quantum particles which subsequently expanded
rapidly-an explosion called the 'hot big bang'. Everything in the
universe is a remnant of that explosion".16 (The currently influen-
tial cosmological theories on the origin of the universe are use-
fully surveyed in the Scientific American report on the June 1990
Nobel symposium on "the birth and early evolution of our
universe".17)
The thesis that the universe had a beginning of some sort
lends both urgency and plausibility to the quest for an ultimate
explanation for the existence of the universe. Dr. Amo Penzias,
one of the pioneer Big Bang experimentalists, focuses on this
factor in his essay in this volume: "Today's dogma holds that
matter is eternal. The dogma comes from the intuitive belief of
people (including the majority of physicists) who don't want to
accept the observational evidence that the universe was
created-despite the fact that the creation of the universe is sup-
ported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far.
As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be
described as having a 'religious' belief that matter must be eter-
nal .... If the universe hadn't always existed, science would be
6 Introduction

confronted by the need for an explanation of its existence" (page

79f.).
That there has to be an explanation is evident to the scientific
mind. But it is equally evident that this explanation cannot be
verified or falsified with scientific tools if it involves absolute
nothingness at any point-as explained later in this anthology
by Professor William Stoeger. (See Part Four.)
Theoreticians at the cutting-edge of cosmology have tried
to overcome the obstacles to explanations of the Big Bang in
scientific terms by probing the ultimate and the fundamental
laws and mechanisms behind the processes detected by the
experimentalists. The most influential approaches to this level of
explanation include the Oscillating Universe hypothesis and the
Quantum Gravity, Vacuum Fluctuation, and Inflationary Uni-
verse models.
According to the Oscillating Universe hypothesis, the expan-
sion of the universe ~iii cease some time in the future and the
universe will contract to its initial state. This contraction will be
followed by another explosion, then a contraction, then an explo-
sion, and so on without end (or beginning). Attractive though it
is in some respects, this hypothesis merely postpones or evades
the questions of ultimate origin and ultimate explanation indef-
initely. How is the existence of this whole mechanism of eternal
exparn,ion and contraction to be explained? On a scientific level,
the hypothesis seems incapable of verification or falsification
and lacks the kind of experimental evidence that grounds the
Big Bang model. Professor Jastrow points out that the evidence
is against the Oscillating Universe hypothesis "because the latest
word is that there is not enough matter in the Universe to halt the
expansion and bring the Universe together again. Furthermore
each time the Universe collapses, it melts down the world that
existed, and if it does emerge from the collapse, an entirely new
world results. This is so far beyond our experience in religion or
in science, that it seems to me it is not worth talking about" (page
46). Be this as it may, the most important consideration is the
question of ultimate origin. And here the Oscillating Universe
hypothesis cannot explain how a universe with oscillating ten-
dencies came to be-or how it continues to exist.
By far the most fascinating theory of the origin of the uni-
verse is the Quantum Gravity model. The Big Bang theory, in its
standard formulations, suggests that there are singularities in the
universe, points at which the laws of physics break down. The
 Roy Abrohom Vorghese 7

notion of singularities has not been attractive even to Stephen

Hawking, who showed that General Relativity indicates that the
universe began in a singularity. In his recent works, Hawking has
sought to eliminate the necessity for a singularity at the origin of
the universe by explaining the Big Bang in terms of a theory of
quantum gravitation. This remarkable theory is an attempt to
unite the science of the Macroverse (General Relativity) with the
science of the Microverse (quantum physics) so that singularities
cease to exist. By applying the principles of quantum physics to
the Big Bang itself, and by developing a complex conception of
"imaginary time", Hawking has tried to show that space-time is
finite but unbounded and that the laws of science do not break
down at any point. In Hawking's words: ''When we combine
quantum mechanics with general relativity, there seems to be a
new possibility that did not arise before: that space and time
together might form a finite, four-dimensional space without sin-
gularities or boundaries, like the surface of the earth but with
more dimensions". 18 Time, it appears, is literally "spaced out",
and the boundary condition of this four-dimensional space is
that it has no boundary.
Although Hawking points out that his theory is only a pro-
posal-"So far, my work on how the no-boundary proposal
determines how the universe comes out of the big bang is still in
a preliminary stage.... I don't think you can completely test it
by observation"19 -and that it cannot be deduced from some
other principle, it is clear that verification of its validity will not
resolve the question at issue here. Hawking himself asks at the
end of A Brief History of Time: ''What is it that breathes fire into the
equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model can-
not answer the questions of why there should be a universe for
the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother
of existing?".20 Hawking's colleague, Roger Penrose, remarks:
"Once you have put more and more of your physical world into
a mathematical structure, you realize how profound and myste-
rious this mathematical structure is. How you can get all these
things out of it is very mysterious". 21
Moreover, as pointed out by a reviewer in Nature, Hawking's
speculations center on "what he considers to be the most com-
mon view of God's activity-that God started off the Universe
and then let it evolve without intervention". Traditional theism,
however, holds:
 that God creates and sustains the entire Universe rather than
just the beginning. Whether or not the Universe has a beginning
has no relevance to the question of its creation, just as whether
an artist's line has a beginning and an end, or instead forms a
circle with no end, has no relevance to the question of its being
drawn. Of course, if the no-boundary proposal is correct, it does
have interesting implications for the beauty, elegance and sim-
plicity of the Universe God did create.... Choosing the no-
boundary state and then actually carrying out the immense task
of the creation of the Universe in this state is a far cry from Carl
Sagan's claim in his introduction to Hawking's book of 'nothing
for a Creator to do"'.22
Stoeger's comments on Hawking's statements reiterate the
nature of the problem: "Any physical model of the universe-
even though it be the definitive unified field theory-will appar-
ently not be able to account intelligibly for the existence of the
universe by itself. It will need some underlying existential
ground or support, which must be presupposed by science and
which science itself, as it is presently conceived and practiced,
cannot completely reveal" (page 258).
Vacuum Fluctuation theories of the origin of the universe, in
combination with inflationary views of the expansion of the uni-
verse, depict the Big Bang as the end-product of the quantum
fluctuation of a primordial vacuum. A vacuum is seen here as
being saturated with quantum fields and as being subject to
fundamental fluctuations (a prediction of quantum physics).
When strong enough, the fluctuating energy fields appear briefly
as "virtual" particles and then disappear. Professor Timothy
Ferris outlines the route from vacuum to universe:

According to the inflationary scenario, the radius of the universe

increased by some 1()50 times, from smaller than a proton to
larger than a softball, during the first 10-30 second of time. During
this brief but critical period the universe was but a vacuum. Its
potential mass and energy could not yet manifest itself as parti-
cles, because space was expanding too fast for the particles to
congeal out of the vacuum. Technically, one described this con-
dition by saying that the vacuum was hung up in a symmetrical
state during a phase transition .... The cosmic vacuum remains
empty even after falling below the temperature at which particle
production ordinarily would take place. Indeed, it is this hang-
up that drives the expansion: The latent energy is tied up in
what is called a zero-value Higgs field, and the field acts as an
 Roy Abraham Varghese 9

engine that inflates the dimensions of cosmic space, driving the

expansion so that the empty universe balloons in perfect Pla-
tonic sphericity. Eventually, (meaning after about 10-30 second)
the quantum instability of the situation catches up with it, and
the expansion abruptly slows to a linear rate. When that
happens the energy latent in the vacuum precipitates out as
particles and antiparticles. The particles mutually annihilate,
and the resulting flood of energy inaugurates the big bang. 23
This conception of the origin of the universe-an extension of the
standard Big Bang model-has inspired the idea that our uni-
verse is just one bubble in a sea of multiple bubble-universes
generated by other quantum fluctuations. Professor Sidney
Coleman of Harvard University speculates that the various uni-
verses are connected via fluctuations in the space-time field
called quantum wormholes.
Like the Quantum Gravity model, Vacuum Fluctuation and
Inflationary Universe theories of the origin of the universe do not
answer the ultimate origin question. How did the quantum laws
that describe the Big Bang-producing vacuum fluctuation origi-
nate? Heinz Pagels, one of the pioneers in Vacuum Fluctuation
theory, asks this question:
The nothingness 'before' the creation of the universe is the most
complete void that we can imagine-no space, time or matter
existed. It is a world without place, without duration or eternity,
without number-it is what the mathematicians call 'empty set'.
Yet this unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of exis-
tence-a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are
these laws written into that void? What 'tells' the void that it is
pregnant with a possible universe? It would seem that even the
void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time. 24
In his critical study of contemporary cosmology, God and the Cos-
mologi.sts, Stanley Jaki makes a far more telling point: "The
method of physics always means an inference from one observ-
able state to another. Observability in turn implies that the thing
observed is not absolutely inert and can therefore interact with
the observer and its instruments. This is why any talk about an
eternal inert universe preceding the actual universe has no place
in physics. As for those who speak of esoteric fluctuations in the
vacuum prior to the actual physical processes that can be traced
back to fifteen billion or so years, they either mean real physical
processes or they do not".2s
10 Introduction

The concept of multiple universes does not mitigate the

dilemma as Stoeger shows: '1f there really are multiple universes,
it seems very difficult to see how we would ever find out about
the others observationally. But having multiple universes still
does not begin to deal with the ultimate questions of why they
exist to begin with and why as a collection or ensemble they have
the order and potentiality they have for at least one of them to
become a universe like ours. It merely postpones these ultimate
questions to a previous step. An ensemble of universes by them-
selves cannot ultimately account for what exists and the charac-
ter of what exists" (page 267f.).
Perhaps the only other final explanation for the existence of
the universe that can be stated in scientific terms would be a
theory showing that the universe would necessarily have to be
the way it is. Hawking states two reasons why any theory pur-
porting to be comprehensive and necessary in this manner
would still be limited:
Even if we do discover a complete unified theory, it would not
mean that we would be able to predict events in general, for two
reasons. The first is the limitation that the uncertainty principle
of quantum mechanics sets on our powers of prediction. There
is nothing we can do to get around that. In practice, however,
this first limitation is less restrictive than the second one. It
arises from the fact that we could not solve the equations of the
theory exactly, except in very simple situations.26
At another level, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem-a theorem
that has become all but indisputable since its formulation in
1930-is fatal for any attempt to derive necessarily true theories.
Ferris describes the theorem and its implications:
Godel's theorem establishes that the full validity of any system,
including a scientific one, cannot be demonstrated within that
system itself. In other words, the comprehensibility of a theory
cannot be established unless there is something outside the
frame against which to test-something beyond the boundary
defined by a thermodynamics equation, or by the collapse of the
quantum wave function, or by any other theory or law. And if
there is such a wider reference frame, then the theory by defini-
tion does not explain everything. In short, there is not and never
will be a complete and comprehensive scientific account of the
universe that can be proved valid. The Creator must have been
fond of uncertainty, for He (or She) has given it to us for keeps.27
 Roy Abraham Varghese 11

No scientific theory, it seems, can bridge the gulf between

absolute nothillgnet.s and a full-fledged universe (or fledgling
universes). This ultimate origin question is a metascientific ques-
tion-one which science can ask but not answer. This seems to be
the point made by Professor Charles Townes: "It is true that
physicists hope to look behind the 'big bang' and possibly to
explain the origin of our universe as, for example, a type of fluc-
tuation. But then, of what is it a fluctuation and how did this in
tum begin to exist? In my view, th~ question oi wigin seems
always left unanswered if we explore from a scientific view alone.
Thus, I believe there is a need for some religious or metaphysical
explanation if we are to have one" (page 123).
Recognition that the question of the origin of the universe is
a metascientific question does not necessarily entail an end to
inquiry because the Principle of Explanation-which we shall
refer to here as the PE-is itself a metascientific principle rooted
in the essence of rationality. This being the case, the PE can
legitimately be extended to metascientific levels of explanation.
("Explanation" is dealt with in Paul Davies's The Mind of God
[New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992) and in Richard Swin-
burne's "The Limits of Explanation" [in Explanation and its Limits,
edited by Dudley Knowles, Cambridge University Press, 1990].)
When applied without reservation, the PE could ground the
scientific enterprise in a religious view of reality. Such a connec-
tion formed the core of Einstein's views on science and religion:
"Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the
rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific
work of a higher order.... This firm belief, a belief bound up with
deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of
experience, represents my conception of God". 28 Belief in the
"rationality or intelligibility of the world", according to Einstein,
is implicitly a belief "in a superior mind that reveals itself in the
world of experience". As it relates to the ultimate origin of the
universe (or universes), the PE path from the "world of experi-
ence" to a "superior mind" is usually represented as a cosmolog-
ical or a teleological argument.

..........
From Cosmos to Theos
Most cosmological and teleological arguments are based on the
PE and their validity is bound up with the validity of the PE as an
essential and ultimate principle of reality. In its most common
12 Introduction

forms, cosmological arguments begin with the premiss that any-

thing which exists must have an explanation adequate to fully
account for its existence either in itself or in something else
("explanation" is understood here in the generic sense of "expla-
nation of origin": sophisticated distinctions between regularity
explanations and rationality explanations and the attempt to
reduce all explanations to personal explanations belong to
another level of refinement). From this starting-point, it proceeds
to show that "universe" is a term used to refer to all entities that
do not have an explanation for their existence in themselves and
that the universe is not a super-entity over and above the entities
that constitute it. Entities which do not explain their own exist-
ence contribute zero to their own origin or birth (that is, they are
not responsible for their own existence but owe their origin to
others). The existence of any one of the entities that make up the
universe poses a problem. It has a cause (someone or something
else brought it into existence), and this cause is also caused by
still another cause, which was also caused by still another cause,
and so on.
Logically, there are two possible explanations for the exis-
} tence of this particular entity or any of the caused entities that
I constitute the universe. Either there is an infinite series of caused
causes or there is an ultimate uncaused cause (a cause which
does not owe its origin to any one or anything else and can fully
explain its own existence). The existence of an infinite series of
caused causes is not an adequate explanation because such a
series would still not explain the existence of even one caused
entity: every entity in the infinite series contributes zero to its
own origin, and an infinite number of zeroes is still zero. Just as
an infinite series of mail-carriers cannot explain the existence of
one letter, an infinite series of entities which were caused cannot
explain the existence they have received. The only viable expla-
nation, then, for the existence of any one of the entities or all of
the entities that make up the universe would be the existence of
an ultimate uncaused being-a being that did not receive exis-
tence from anyone or anything else and can completely explain
its own existence. This self-explanatory being is commonly
called "God" and is the explanatory ultimate demanded by all
non-self-explanatory entities from sub-atomic particles to galax-
ies. Cosmological arguments do not reason from the fact that
everything in the universe has a cause in space and time to the
conclusion that the universe has a cause in space and time: these
arguments point out, rather, that everything in the universe
 Roy Abrohom Varghese 13

is non-self-explanatory, which means that the explanation of

the universe does not lie in itself but must lie in a self-explana-:
torl be.il!B.- 29
Stoeger restates the cosmological argument as it applies to
the data of modem science:

The existence of something, whether it be energy, material par-

ticles, or operative laws, requires a cause which either necessar-
ily exists in itself, or ultimately rests on a cause which necessar-
ily exists in itself-a primary cause, the first in the causal chain,
not needing any other cause to explain its existence. To have a
chain of contingent entities stretching back into the past, none
of which explains its own existence and none of which causally
depends on an entity or cause which explains its own existence,
is simply unintelligible. Or to put it another way, to trace the
underlying causes of an entity to more and more fundamental
entities and processes which themselves depend on other enti-
ties, causes and processes for their existence does not fully
explain the existence of the entity in question, unless the search
terminates in an entity or process which explains or causes itself,
which necessarily exists-which of its nature cannot not exist. If
it terminates, or seems to terminate, in an entity-a geometric
manifold, a symmetry group, some 'cosmic egg'-which is not
necessary in this sense and we simply throw up our hands and
say that this entity simply exists-simply is-without searching
for any primary cause, upon which to rest the 'cosmic egg', then
we have prematurely and arbitrarily abandoned our quest for
the intelligibility of the whole chain. Then we have no explana-
tion whatsoever for the ultimate cause of the existence of any-
thing-or for why this symmetry group or manifold exists, and
not some other imaginable one, or why this particular one which
we can mathematically investigate is given concretization
within reality rather than some other one. If it is not necessary-
as symmetry groups and geometric manifolds are not-then
there is nothing in its nature which specifies that it must be
concretized or instantiated in physical reality.... The problem
of the origin of the universe, philosophically speaking, is not
basically that of a temporal origin, but rather that of a 'causal
origin' which renders, first of all, its existence and, secondly, its
characteristic order intelligible-which adequately explains or
accounts for both" (page 257).

To be sure, cosmological arguments have not convinced

everyone. But these arguments seem to derive their validity from ;'-t-
the same PE that drives the scientific enterprise.30 And most
Introduction

of the common objections to these arguments appear to be

fallacious.
An infinite series of causes, it has been argued, is not a suffi-
cient explanation for the existence of any one of the causes. In his
famous trilogy on the existence of God-The Coherence of Theism,
The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason-Oxford philosopher
Richard Swinburne shows that this is the case even if the uni-
verse existed over an infinite period of time: "If the universe is of
infinite age ... if the only causes of its past states are prior past
states, the set of past states as a whole will have no cause and so
no explanation. This will hold if each state has a complete scien-
tific explanation in terms of a prior state, and so God is not
involved. For although each state of the universe will have a
complete explanation (unlike in the case where the universe is
finite, where its first state will not have any explanation), the
whole infinite series will have no explanation, for there will be no
causes of members of the series, lying outside the series. In that
case the existence of the universe over infinite time will be an
i!texplicable brute fact. There will be an explanation ... of why,
once existent, it continues to exist. But what will be inexpli-
cable is the non-existence of a time before which there was no
universe". 31
Perhaps the most common objection to the cosmological
argument is the question, Who created God? Astronomer Carl
Sagan, for instance, says, ''To my mind, it seems not fully satisfac-
tory to say that there was a first cause. That seems to postpone
dealing with the problem rather than solving it. If we say 'God'
made the universe, then surely the next question is 'Who made
God?' If we say 'God was always here', why not say the universe
was always here? If we say that the question 'Where did God
come from?' is too tough for us poor mortals to understand, then
why not say that the question of, 'Where did the universe come
from?' is too tough for us mortals? In what way, exactly, does the
God hypothesis advance our knowledge of cosmology?"32
Sagan's contention that God is no more an explanation for
the origin of the universe than the universe is itself, however,
rests on a misconception. If the universe is said to be ultimate, it
is inexplicable because its existence cannot be explained. If God is
taken as ultimate, God's existence need not be explained because
God is self-explanatory. Only a misunderstanding of the mean-
ing of the concept "God" can lead to questions like ''Who made
God?" or ''Where did God come from?" It is as absurd to ask for
an explanation for the existence of a self-explanatory being as it
 Roy Abrohom Varghese 15

is to ask "Why is a circle round?" The 'Who created God?"

approach is subjected to further analysis by Professor H.D. Lewis
and Professor Hugo Meynell later in this volume (see Part Three).
As Meynell says, "Suppose God is ... that on the understanding
and will of which all else depends. In that case, God, in virtue of
being God, could not depend on any other being or beings. The
rational theist may thus claim that God is required in explanation
of the otherwise 'brute facts' of the world, without being such as
to require explanation in turn" (page 246).
Meynell's comments are an appropriate rejoinder to another
common objection to cosmological arguments: the claim that the
universe is just a brute fact for which we should not expect or
seek an explanation. In a well-known debate, Bertrand Russell
asserted that the universe is there and that's all and we should
not ask for an explanation of the existence of the universe. Philos-
ophers like Jean-Paul Sartre have maintained that the universe is
"gratuitous", de trop, "just there". In this volume, the noted athe-
ist Antony Flew holds that we should take the existence of the
universe "and its most fundamental features as the explanatory
ultimates" (page 241).
Remarkably, Professor Flew goe6 on to "confess" that the
atheist "has to be embarrassed by the contemporary cosmolog-
ical consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists are providing
a scientific proof of what St. Thomas [Aquinas] contended could
not be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a
beginning. So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of
as being not only without end but also without beginning, it
remains easy to urge that its brute existence, and whatever are
found to be its most fundamental features, should be accepted as
the explanatory ultimates. Although I believe that it remains still
correct, it certainly is neither easy nor comfortable to maintain
this position in the face of the Big Bang story" (page 241). While
it is true that the "contemporary cosmological consensus" is an
embarrassment for the "universe-as-ultimate-brute-fact" sce-
nario, the most serious roadblock to this scenario is the very
structure of the scientific enterprise.
By its very nature, the PE on which science is based cannot
rest in brute facts, facts that are unintelligible and non-
explanatory. The assertion that the universe is the "ultimate
brute fact" is an assertion that there is no explanation for the
existence of the universe and that we should not expect any
explanation for its existence. But, as Hugo Meynell has shown, "It
is an ultimate consequence of our a priori assumptions about the
16 lnlroduction

nature of the world and of our knowledge of it [as manifested, for

instance, in the scientific method] ... that there cannot be 'brute
facts'. A putative fact which turns out to be incapable of being
fitted into any framework of explanation is not a fact at all; it is
impossible to spell out what it would be coherently to suppose,
let alone to be assured of, the existence of such a 'fact'. The exis-
tence of God would not be a 'brute fact' in the sense objected to,
since, as postulated in terms of the form of argument advanced
here, God, by his nature, is the sort of being whose understand-
ing and will would explain the how it is and that it is of every-
thing else, without himself being capable of being explained in
the same kind of way. That on whose existence, understanding
and will the existence of everything else depended could not be
dependent on the existence of anything else". 33 There is a quali-
tative difference between the concepts of God and the universe
that is significant in the quest for an explanatory ultimate: God is
by definition a Being of infinite intelligence, the source and sum-
mit of rationality, whereas the universe in itself is never thought
of as intelligent or rational (though it manifests signs of being
grounded in intelligence and rationality).34
It is often assumed that David Hume and Immanuel Kant
have shown that all arguments for the existence of God are nec-
essarily flawed. Hume's and Kant's critiques, however, are
derived, to a great extent, from their eccentric theories of knowl-
edge. Jaki, Meynell, and a number of other thinkers have repeat-
edly demonstrated that the Humean and Kantian theories of
knowledge used against theistic arguments cannot be accepted
uncritically because they fly in the face of the key assumptions
underlying the scientific method. Russell himself once said,
"Kant deluged the philosophical world with muddle and mys-
tery, from which it is only now beginning to emerge. Kant has the
reputation of being the greatest of modem philosophers, but to
my mind he was a mere misfortune". 35 Additionally, Kant's
attempt to identify the cosmological argument with the ontolog-
ical argument has often been effectively derailed, most notably in
AE. Taylor's Theism.36 It cannot be denied that cosmological argu-
ments involve some degree of reasoning from concepts-the
same concepts that are fundamental to common sense and
science. But these arguments are not entirely or even mainly
based on reasoning from concepts: they rest on the sotid ground
of everyday experience and a universe that calls out for ultimate
explanation.
 Roy Abraham Varghese 17

Professor T.D. Sullivan points out that the notion that every-
thing that exists came to be without a cause is an incoherent one
if subjected to careful analysis:

Even if the claim that everything that comes to be could do so

without a cause implies no self-contradiction, it may contradict
something we know. Does it? That depends, of course, on what
we know. Suppose we know that at least one thing (substance,
aggregate, event, property, or action-"existence or mode of
existence") has a cause. I will argue that given just this much it
is absurd to say everything could come to be without a cause.
That is, there is an implicit contradiction in saying, "Of course
some things in fact have causes, but everything, including the
very things that happen to have causes, could come to be with-
out a cause".37
·-------- ~~ S) · ~ ;,.._ .,._ k,:_ Q __D...D
The§i:"in of though!)that leads from the universe to a tran-
scendent self-explanatory Being is, above all, the response of
reason to the facts of experience. "The direction of thought
towards the unconditioned (God)", writes Copleston, "is simply
the movement of reason itself in its process of understanding in
a given context. ... The completely isolated finite thing is unin-
telligible, in the sense that reason cannot rest in this idea but
strives to overcome the isolation.... Some of those who speak of
things as being 'gratuitous', de trop or 'just there', betray by the
very phrases which they use the fact that their reason is not
satisfied with the idea of a finite thing as 'just there"'. By his
refusa) to apply the PE to the universe, the atheist "simply puts
a bar to the movement of understanding in a certain context
because, for reasons which it can be left to others to determine, he
does not wish to travel along a path which, as he sees clearly
enough, leads in a certain direction". 38 Because it rises in the
"movement of reason", rational theism (as opposed to fici~i~l!})
has been described as the "ultimate rationalism", "the fulfillment
of human rationality".
The inseparable connection between science and the PE may
raise questions about the relevance of this principle for the world
revealed by quantum physics. With such conceptions as the
wave-like behavior of particles and the intrinsic inexactitude of
measurements in the sub-atomic world, quantum physics may
seem to violate some of the fundamental axioms of the scientific
enterprise. But three things should be noted about the applicabil-
ity of the PE in the quantum realm.
18 lnlroduction

It must be understood, first, that quantum theory, like all of

science (including the new science of "chaos" that seeks to
extend "explanation" even to non-equilibrium complexity), is a
search for fundamental laws that describe and explain the work-
ings of the world, an attempt to crack, in Heinz Pagels's phrase,
"the cosmic code". The quantum quest is a quest for the ultimate
laws that govern the sub-atomic realm as exemplified in quan-
tum field theory by the pursuit of "grand unified field theories".
Implicitly, then, quantum theory assumes that reality is intelligi-
ble and rational and can be "explained" (even if explanations are
stated in terms of statistical laws, such laws hinge on fundamen-
tal principles of consistency). Indeed, as Pagels chronicles, "The
observed properties of the quantum particles can be precisely
described in the language of mathematics, and within that lan-
guage the notion of symmetry has come to play an increasingly
important role .... The role of symmetry in describing the prop-
erties of quantum particles is central to the entire enterprise of
modem physics". 39 "In quantum physics", writes Professor
Anton Zee, "symmetry not only tells us about the underlying
laws, it also tells us about the actual physical states". 40
Secondly, the extrapolations and speculative extravaganzas
inspired by quantum theory may be misleading. Professor David
Bohm, an eminent quantum theorist, points out that "An inter-
pretation, such as the various interpretations of quantum theory,
is in no sense a deduction from experimental facts or from the
mathematics of a theory. Rather it is a proposal of what the the-
ory might mean in a physical and intuitively comprehensive
sense.... In essence, all the available interpretations of the quan-
tum theory, and indeed of any other physical theory, depend
fundamentally on implicit or explicit philosophical assumptions,
as well as on assumptions that arise in countless other ways from
beyond the field of physics". 41 Besides, no matter how radically
theories like Bohr's Principle of Complementarity and the Many
Worlds theories conflict with commonsense conceptions, they
are still attempts to describe and explain "what is". Professor
Bohm suggests that "the quantum theory demonstrates the need
for radically new notions of order, and the confusions and fail-
ures associated with theory may be due to an attempt to under-
stand something radically new in terms of an older order". 42
Thirdly, as Professor Jaki explains in his Gifford Lectures, the
assumptions of quantum theory "were not deducible from mea-
surements and from the mathematical techniques of matrix and
 Roy Abrohom Varghese 19

wave mechanics. Such assumptions were the strict, nonstatisti-

cal equality of all quanta, of all electrons, of all fundamental par-
ticles within a given class, to say nothing of the invariability of
the laws of electrodynamics in all atomic processes and measure-
ments". In addition, "the very backbone of matrix mechanics, the
universal validity for atomic physics of a noncummutative alge-
bra, was not at all a derivative of observation". 43
The naive notion that reality disappears when viewed from a
quantum perspective was refuted by one of the principal archi-
tects of quantum theory, Werner Heisenberg: "The criticism of
the Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum theory rests
quite generally on the anxiety that, with this interpretation, the
concept of 'objective reality' which forms the basis of classical
physics might be driven out of physics. As we have here exhaus-
tively shown, this anxiety is groundless, since the 'actual' plays
the same decisive part in quantum theory as it does in classical
physics. The Copenhagen Interpretation is indeed based upon
the existence of processes which can be simply described in
terms of space and time, i.e., in terms of classical concepts, and
which thus compose our 'reality' in the proper sense". 44
Another misleading artifact of quantum speculation is the
idea that quantum theory entails the causeless, spontaneous
creation of something from nothing. As pointed out earlier, abso-
lute nothingness can never be an object of scientific inquiry. In
any case, the nothing in question here turns out either to have
antecedents in some minimal something or to actually be "some-
thing". To quote Professor Paul Davies: "The processes repre-
sented here do not represent the creation of matter out of
nothing, but the conversion of pre-existing energy into material
form. We still have to account for where the energy came from in
the first place .... Quantum physics has to exist (in some sense)
so that a quantum transition can generate the cosmos in the first
place". 45 Professor Adolf Griinbaum warns that some commonly
used terms are misleading: '1n the case of the so-called 'pair-
creation' of a particle and its anti-particle, such as a positron and
an electron, their rest-mass formation as such occurs by conver-
sion of other forms of energy such as a gamma ray into them ....
The phrase 'pair annihilation' obscures the fact that the energy of
the original positive rest-mass of the particles re-appears in the
resulting gamma radiation, although the term 'annihilation-
radiation' is not similarly misleading. Corresponding remarks
apply to the transformation of gamma radiation into an electron-
20 Introduction

positron pair: such pair-production is certainly not a case of pair-

'creation' out of nothing".46
It is clear from the above that inquiries in the quantum realm
do not eliminate the Principle of Explanation that underlies the
scientific enterprise and that leads ultimately to "a superior
mind" behind the world of experience. It is significant that pio-
neers of the quantum quest like Planck and Heisenberg saw no
conflict between the scientific enterprise and a religious view of
reality (as illustrated by the statements quoted on page 1).

Anthropic Arguments
Science, we have seen, cannot deal with absolute nothingness.
Science "works" when you have a universe, an intelligible sys-
tem of processes and laws and entities and structures. Once the
ultimate origin question-the origin of being from nothing-
ness-has been resolved in terms of an ultimate metascientific
explanation, origin questions that assume a pre-existing "some-
thing" causing or evolving into something else (rather than
"something" coming from "nothing") can be addressed by utiliz-
ing scientific tools and techniques. Thus, the drama of cosmic
history that began with the Big Bang and continues to this day
can be understood in terms of what Charles Darwin described as
"secondary causes" -causes that can be studied purely by
means of the scientific method-ultimately deriving from the
Creator: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the
laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production
and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world
should have been due to secondary causes, like those determin-
ing the birth and death of the individual". 47 Traditional theists
like Augustine understood the creative process in terms of
"causal connections" rather than temporal interventions: "He
made that which gave time its beginning, as He made all things
together, disposing them in an order based not on intervals of
time but on causal connections". 48
It must be remembered, however, that God's relation to the
universe is not just one of creation but is also one of conservation
in being. Professor Arthur Peacocke "unpacks" this concept thus:
"The cosmos continues to exist at all times by the sustaining
creative will of God without which it would simply not be at
all.... Clearly, if God is 'outside' time in some sense, that is, if
time itself is other than God and part of the created cosmos, there
 Roy Abraham Varghese 21

is no more difficulty in regarding God as having a creative rela-

tionship with the cosmos at all times than postulating a special
creative relation only at some posited 'zero' time". 49
Many contemporary scientists are fascinated by apparent
evidence that cosmic processes and patterns are manifestations
of an extra-cosmic intelligence. Thus various versions of the
Anthropic Principle-the principle that attempts to explain the
extraordinary array of cosmic coincidences that made human life
possible in terms of a universe "tailor-made" for Homo sapiens-
function as today's teleological arguments. In The Cosmic Blue-
print, Professor Paul Davies argues that "The very fact that the
universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex
structures to emerge and develop to the point of conscious-
ness-in other words, that the universe has organized its own
self-awareness-is for me powerful evidence that there is 'some-
thing going on' behind it alt. The impression of design is over-
whelming".so And, in Infinite in All Directions, physicist Freeman
Dyson maintains that
The choice of laws of nature, and the choice of initial conditions
for the universe, are questions belonging to meta-science and
not to science. Science is restricted to the explanation of phe-
nomena within the universe. Teleology is not forbidden when
explanations go beyond science into meta-science. The most
familiar example of a meta-scientific explanation is the so-called
Anthropic Principle.... The last of the five philosophical prob-
lems is the problem of final aims. The problem here is to try to
formulate some statement of the ultimate purpose of the uni-
verse. In other words, the problem is to read God's mind. 51
Finally, Professor John Leslie, one of today's leading anthropic
theorists, addresses the issue of explaining our existence as
observers of the universe:
Let us leave aside for the moment any struggles with whether
the bare existence of any world at all cries out to be explained, or
again, all fuss over whether an explanation is needed for the
sheer fact that the world obeys causal laws. Let us concentrate
on whether observership needs explanation. Modern cosmol-
ogy appears to confirm that it does. And though the Many
Worlds hypothesis ... provides a possible explanation here, it
is hardly one noteworthy for its simplicity, is it? ... the God
hypothesis could well be the more reasonable. And in that case
to say there was no actual evidence for it would be like saying
22 Introduction

that because black holes cannot be observed directly there

could be no signs of their existence".52

From an anthropic standpoint, the key question in origin of

life studies is not that of specific supernatural intervention in the
processes that culminated in life but of the Design and Intelli-
gence implied by these processes. Even if or whether there is a
consensus in the scientific community on the mechanisms re-
sponsible for the origin of life, the link between the origin of life
and the ultimate origin question cannot be ignored. Self-organ-
izing scenarios for the origin of life do not obviate the need for an
ultimate explanation. Ii matter or energy has self-organizing
tendencies, we are still left with two questions: How did matter
and energy come to have these tendencies? and how did the
matter and energy that have these tendencies come into being?
Similar questions can be asked about the popular view that the
universe is such that it will inevitably give rise to life: How did
the universe come to have this capability? and how did a uni-
verse with such a capability come to be?
The origin of Homo sapiens poses problems similar to the ques-
tions of the origin of life and also some that are qualitatively
different. On a biological level, most researchers have fairly def-
inite ideas about the "genealogy" of Homo sapiens; unfortunately,
almost all the work done on the hominids and on evolutionary
theory in general remains at a biological level. The problem of
consciousness-the problem of the human mind-is rarely if
ever addressed. In this anthology, however, this metascientific
problem is taken seriously by a few of the contributors who
consider Homo sapiens in the light of the mental activity that is a
fundamental feature of human experience.
Professor George Snell points out that ''Matter and con-
sciousness appear to me to be distinct though tightly linked
entities. Consciousness we know directly only through our per-
sonal, inner sensations, but as I see it, and as I assume other
people see it, it is quite unlike the material world .... While
science can study the nature of the material world, and is the
appropriate tool for the study of extrasensory perception, it can
tell us essentially nothing as to the nature of consciousness"
(page 210f.). Sir Nevill Mott argues that "There is one 'gap' for
which there will never be a scientific explanation, and that is
man's consciousness. No scientist in the future, equipped with a
super-computer of the twenty-first century or beyond, will be
 Roy Abraham Varghese 23

able to set it to work and show that he is thinking about it. This
has been argued by my successor as the head of the Cavendish
Laboratory at Cambridge, Sir Brian Pippard, in an essay entitled
'The Invincible Ignorance of Science' (Contemporary Physics [Tay-
lor and Francis, London] volume 29, p. 393, 1988). Pippard, an
agnostic about God, does not describe this as the 'gap' where
God makes himself known. But I would deduce from this
hypothesis, that the way God plays a part in our lives is because
countless men and women claim to be conscious of Him, when
they seek Him, and accept that He is the God of love. God can
speak to us and show us how we have to live".5 3
According to Sir John Eccles the origin of consciousness is
relevant to the origin of Homo sapiens: "The only certainty we
have is that we exist as unique self-conscious beings, each
unique, never to be repeated. This I regard as outside the evolu-
tionary process. The evolutionary process gives rise to my body
and brain but, dualistically speaking, that is one side of the trans-
action. The other side is my conscious being itself in association
with the brain for this period when I have a brain on this earth.
So that brain and body are in the evolutionary process but yet
not fully explained in this way. But the conscious self is not in the
Darwinian evolutionary process at all. I think it is a divine crea-
tion .... And this is a loving creation. You have to think of it as
not just by a Creator Who tosses off souls one after the other. This
is a loving Creator giving us all these wonderful gifts" (page
163f.). As described in a primal metaphor as fundamental as the
concept of creatio ex nihilo, the human mind is the imago dei.

Notes
1. Albert Einstein, Lettres a Maurice Solovine reproduits en facsimile et
traduits en fram;ais (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1956), pp. 102-3.
2. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, trans. Sonja Bargmann (New
York: Dell Publishing Company, 1973), p. 255.
3. Max Planck, Where is Science Going?, trans. with biographical note by
James Murphy (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), p. 168.
4. Werner Heisenberg. Across the Frontiers, trans. Peter Heath (San Fran-
cisco: Harper and Row, 1974), p. 213.
5. Stephen Hawking. A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988),
p. 175.
6. Quoted in Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way (New York:
William Morrow, 1988), p. 177.
7. Stephen Hawking. A Brief History of Time, p. 175.
24 lnlroduclion

8. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton,
1978), p. 15.
9. Jaegwon Kim, "Explanation in Science," Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Volume Three (New York: Macmillan, 1%7), p. 159.
10. Hugo Meynell, The Intelligible Universe (Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes
and Noble, 1982), p. 84.
11. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 49.
12. Frederick Copleston, Religion and Philosophy (Dublin: Gill and Mac-
millan, 1974), p. 174.
13. Leibniz Selections, edited by Philip P. Wiener (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1951), p. 527.
14. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp. 33-34.
15. Stanley Jaki, The Absolute Beneath the Relative (Lanham, Maryland: Uni-
versity Press of America, 1988), p. 11.
16. Heinz Pagels, Perfect Symmetry (New York: Bantam, 1985), p. 146.
17. "Universal Truths", Scientific American, October, 1990.
18. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 173.
19. Stephen Hawking in Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmolo-
gists, edited by Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer (Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, 1990), p. 397.
20. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 174.
21. Roger Penrose in Origins: The Lives and Worlds of Modern Cosmologists,
edited by Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer, (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1990), p. 433.
22. Don N. Page, "Hawking's Timely Story," Nature, April, 1988, p. 742-
43. The philosophical problems generated by Hawking's cosmolog-
ical speculations are further scrutinized by Professor William Craig
in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
23. Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way, pp. 358-59.
24. Heinz Pagels, Perfect Symmetry, p. 365.
25. Stanley Jaki, God and the Cosmologists (Washington, D.C.: Regnery
Gateway, 1989), p. 81. Jaki's critical distinctions indicate that the
problem of the origin of the universe is a metascientific and not a
scientific problem. In this respect, Professor Adolf Griinbaum is right
in talking about "The Pseudo-Problem of Creation in Physical Cos-
mology" (Philosophy of Science, September, 1989). But what is not a
"problem" in physical cosmology does not cease to be a problem in
ontological inquiry.
26. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 168.
27. Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way, p. 384.
28. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, p. 255.
29. Strictly speaking, as Professor Meynell has pointed out, there is one
other possibility: a multitude of uncaused causes. E.L. Mascall and
H.D. Lewis, among others, have shown why this possibility does not
resolve the issue of ultimate explanation. Mascall: '1t might, how-
 Introduction 25

ever, be replied (1) that the supposition that there are two or more
self-existent beings each of which is the transcendent cause of a
different set of finite beings (or perhaps different sets of which are
the transcendent causes of different sets of finite beings) leaves their
own co-existence unexplained, (2) that the constitution of finite
beings with their transcendent cause manifests the latter as being
absolutely ultimate and not as one who shares his ultimacy with
others. Such replies as these receive welcome support from consid-
erations of the nature of morality." The Openness of Being (Philadel-
phia: Westminster Press, 1971), p.119. Lewis: "[The Ultimate Reality)
can clearly not be one among many of its kind. It must be beyond the
relatedness of other things and retain in itself the principle by which
other entities stand in relation to one another. If it had a duplicate
the relation of the two realities to one another would have to be
understood again in a way that pointed beyond both to some more
ultimate and radically different sort of being which is itself limited by
nothing. God is not primus inter pares but absolute." Philosophy of
Religion (London: English Universities Press, 1%5), p. 147.
30. Some critics have impugned the validity of a Principle of Explana-
tion on the grounds that it leads to incoherence when confronted
with the question of ultimate explanation. The problem with a Being
that necessarily exists as an explanation for the universe, it is alleged,
is the relation between the universe and the Necessary Being: if the
universe-explaining Being is necessary, then so is the universe and
its relation to the Necessary Being. In response to these charges, it
must first be pointed out that even if alleged problems with the
concept of a Necessary Being can be shown to be legitimate, the
invalidation of this concept is not simultaneously a disproof of a
Principle of Explanation. We know that the Principle "works" in
everyday contexts, and its validity in these contexts is not in ques-
tion because of apparent problems in applying it in ultimate con-
texts. Secondly, as Eleonore Stllmp and Norman Kretzmann have
argued, the concept of Divine Simplicity entails "that God is a logi-
cally necessary being all of whose acts of will are at least condition-
ally necessitated, and among these acts of will is the volition that
certain things be contingent." "Absolute Simplicity", Faith and Phi-
losophy, Volume 2, Number 4, p. 377.
31. Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1979), p. 124.
32. "God and Carl Sagan: Is the Cosmos Big Enough for Them?," U.S.
Catholic, May 1981, p. 20.
33. Hugo Meynell, The Intelligible Universe, pp. 104-5.
34. Stump and Kretzmann show clearly why the existence of God is not
a "brute fact" like the existence of the universe: "The answer to the
question 'Why does God exist?' is that he cannot not exist, and the
26 Introduction

reason he cannot not exist is that because he is absolutely simple he

is identical with his nature. If his nature is internally consistent, it
exists in all possible worlds, and so God, identical with his nature,
exists in all possible worlds. The necessity of God's existence is not
one more characteristic of God which needs an explanation of its
own but is instead a logical consequence of God's absolute simplic-
ity". "Absolute Simplicity", p. 377.
35. Bertrand Russell,An Outline of Philosophy, (London: Allen and Un win,
1927), p. 83.
36. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Volume 12, p. 278.
37. "Coming to be Without a Cause," Philosophy, Volume 65, 1990, p. 262.
38. Frederick Copleston, Religion and Philosophy, pp. 176-77.
39. Heinz Pagels, Perfect Symmetry, pp. 176-77.
40. Anton Zee, Fearful Symmetry (New York: Macmillan, 1986), p. 150.
41. David Bohm, Science, Order and Creativity (New York: Bantam, 1987),
p.102.
42. David Bohm, Science, Order and Creativity, p. 103.
43. Stanley Jaki, The Road of Science and the Ways to God (Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1978), p. 211.
44. Werner Heisenberg, "The Development of the Interpretation of the
Quantum Theory," Niels Bohr and the Development of Physics, edited by
W. Pauli, L. Rosenfeld, and V. Weisskopf (London: Pergamon Press,
1955), p. 28.
45. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1983), pp. 31, 217.
46. Adolf Griinbaum, "The Pseudo-Problem of Creation," Philosophy of
Science, September, 1989, pp. 383-85.
47. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species /Jy means of Natural Selection,
(London: Penguin, 1968), p. 460.
48. St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume I, trans. and
annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J. (New York: Newman
Press, 1982), p. 154.
49. A.R. Peacocke, Science and the Christian Experiment (London: Oxford
University Press, 1971 ), pp. 120, 123.
50. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1988), p. 203.
51. Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All Directions (New York: Harper and Row,
1988), pp. 296-98.
52. John Leslie, "Observership in Cosmology: the Anthropic Principle,"
Mind, 1983, Volume XCII, pp. 573-79.
53. Sir Nevill Mott, "Science and the Existence of God," Cosmos, Bios,
Theos, page 66. In The Emperor's New Mind, Professor Roger Penrose
picks apart the notion that computer systems can duplicate the
mind and shows that human creativity and consciousness are, in
principle, beyond the reach of even the most sophisticated comput-
ers. John Lucas used Godel's theorem to reach this conclusion in The
Freedom of the Will.
 PART ONE
..........
Astronomers, Mathematicians,
and Physicists
 1
Who Arranged for These Laws to
Cooperate So Well?
Professor Ulrich /. Becker

• Born 17 December 1938

• Ph.D. in physics, University of Hamburg, 1968
• Currently Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
and Member of the Research Council of Europe in Geneva,
Switzerland

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: high-energy particle

physics; co-discoverer of the new meson J (3.1 ); study of the variety of
new particles, particularly vector mesons

• Professor Becker on:

the origin ofthe universe: "Scientifically: unknown".
the origin of life:' 'Even if new' chaotic-to-order' models enhance the
probability by many orders of magnitude to form the first reprodicing
entity, the question of the origin is not answered without addressing
who arranged for these laws to cooperate so well".
the origin of Homo sopiens: " ... Taungchild, Neanderthal, Cro-
Magnon ... "
God: "How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any
compelling answer ever given".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
Not one of conflict. There is no room for human arrogance or
intolerance in this relation. At all times scientists should be aware
of the incompleteness of their knowledge and attempts, as just
the greatest among them were.

28
 Ulrich J. Becker 29

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Scientifically: unknown. Speculations are compatible with: "In
the beginning there was light!" namely (heavy photons, Z's, and
so on-force carrier bosons). Ironically we consist of the
condensed matter made of zerospace (pointlike) fermions. Is it
only the Pauli exclusion that provides our space, and the Higgs
fields our energy? Anyhow don't be afraid to call it creation.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
It happened 3 X 1Q9 years ago. Luria and Ziegler argue on plau-
sibilistic levels to overcome the minute probability of an acciden-
tal start as scientifically rigorous thermodynamics predicts. Even
if new "chaos-to-order" models enhance the probability by many
orders of magnitude to form the first reproducing entity, the
question of the origin is not answered without addressing who
arranged for these laws to cooperate so well.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

Who was the first one? From all that we presently know: Taung-
child, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, Akkadians? Or better-the
first one to excel mere opportunism by recognizing himself with
"good and evil". Sapiens means "wise" -are we qualified?

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
Honestly, with clear separation of scientific knowledge from
plausible or pretentious speculation. If you discovered how one
wheel in the "clock" turns-you may speculate how the rest move,
but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave
alone the question of who wound up the spring.
(He who cannot-for ego-cosmetics or other reasons-distin-
guish fact from speculation, please stay off TV and public
debates.) ·

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compel-
ling answer ever given. The eighteenth and nineteenth century
30 Astronomers, Mothemolicions, and Physicists

determinism (including my dearest Immanuel Kant) tried a uni-

verse running down like a clock with a "departed" watchmaker.
How naive can one get to use a time argument (departed) for the
creator of space-time!
A final remark: If you accept God as being "the Law" (physical,
chemical, social, mathematical, moral-ethical, psychological ... )
all points 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 fall in place.
 2
The Origin of the Universe Is, and Always Will Be,
a Mystery
..........
Professor Stuart Bowyer

• Born 2 August 1934

• Ph.D. in physics, Catholic University, 1965

• Currently Professor of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: galactic and extra-

galactic X-rays; extreme ultraviolet radiation in earth's atmosphere
and from astronomical objects; at Berkeley, he has developed a
group which is primarily involved with X-ray, extreme ultraviolet, and
far ultraviolet astronomy, and related topics in high energy astrophys-
ics; awarded several patents for space instrumentation and received
the Humboldt Foundation of Germany Senior Scientist Award (l 982)

• Professor Bowyer on:

the origin of the universe: "Ultimately, the origin of the universe is,
and always will be, a mystery. Science has pressed the level of what
can be explained further and further into the early universe, but the
mystery is nonetheless there".
the origin of life: " ... based on a series of chemical reactions ... "
the origin of Homo sapiens: '' ... one product of the effects of ran-
dom genetic variation and natural selection".
God: "I, at most, am an agnostic".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
Physical science should, and does, reflect or describe the physical
world. Religion should, and does, reflect or guide the world of
human values, both intrinsically and in ways which may possi-
bly be related to value entities outside of usual human experi-
ence. Hence religion is forced to take the science description of
the world as it is. And physical science has no claim for recogni-
tion on the topic of human values.

31
32 Aslronomers, Mothemoticions, and Physicists

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Ultimately, the origin of the universe is, and always will be, a
mystery. Science has pressed the level of what can be explained
further and further into the early universe, but the mystery is
nonetheless there.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
The origin of life is based on a series of chemical reactions which,
given the proper conditions, will surely occur given enough time.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

Homo sapiens is one product of the effects of random genetic vari-
ation and natural selection.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
Science should approach the questions of the origins of life and
the universe as they do any other scientific question.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
I believe the concept of God varies widely. Most formulations are
not viable in my opinion; a few may be. But I, at most, am an
agnostic.
 3
Appeal to God May Be Required to Answer
the Origin Question
Professor Geoffrey F. Chew

• Born 5 June 1924

• Ph.D. in physics, University of Chicago, 1948; Hughes Prize, American

Physical Society, 1962

• Currently Dean of Physical Sciences, University of California, Berkeley

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: developed bootstrap

theory of nuclear particles based on analytic S-Matrix; studies on
Regge pole theory of high-energy nuclear reactions; works include 5-
Matrix Theory of Strong Interactions, 196 l
• Professor Chew on:
the origin of the universe:'' Berkeley quantum cosmologists are seek-
ing a mathematical model that will cover transition from pre-Big Bang
{no space-time) to the present epoch".
the origin of life and of Homo sopiens: "'Lile,· including Homo
sapiens, is only one aspect of structure evolving as the universe
expands .... Nevertheless, an interesting question is whether 'con-
scious life' capable of 'free will' involves aspects of the universal quan-
tum state that fail to show up in the semi classical concept of 'particle···.
God:·· Appeal to God may be needed to answer the ·origin· question:
'Why should a quantum universe evolving toward a semiclassical limit
be consistent?'"

My fifty years of exposure to physics and physicists have led to

a line of research which requires attention to the nonphysical
questions you have posed. Let me begin by telling you some-
thing about a theory which several of us here in Berkeley are
trying to construct. It falls into a category called (e.g. by Gell-
Mann, Hartle, and Hawking) "quantum cosmology". Although
both of the separate words "quantum" and "cosmology" are
used by people who practice "physical science", the combination
leads to questions that are not "scientific", at least in the Galilean

33
34 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

sense. Quantum cosmology constitutes a new category of

human exploration.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is
inadmissible when the whole universe is considered; one must
find a quantum-mechanical origin for the predominantly "classi-
cal" nature of our present universe-which in many respects is
describable in terms of localized "matter" carrying energy and
momentum. This "physical" viewpoint, which allows one to
speak of "observables", "observers", and "observations", is via-
ble only because our present universe is very large and very
dilute. From a quantum cosmological viewpoint such notions
lack a priori status; their meaning has become possible through
evolution of the universe from an epoch of high density (and
small dimension) to which no classical ideas pertain. The accu-
racy (hence, utility) of classical concepts derives from huge
dimensionless numbers that characterize the present universe,
such as the ratio of universe age (1010 years) to Planck time
(10- 44 sec).
Berkeley quantum cosomologists believe even the meaning
of space-time to be no more than an asymptotic approximation in
the foregoing sense. We agree with Mach that local space-time
achieves its meaning from matter (that is, from localized particles
that carry energy), and we interpret "Big Bang" as a quantum-
dynamical condensation leading to (semiclassical, localized) par-
ticles. In our pre-Big Bang epoch there was no meaning for space-
time-no meaning for any subdivision of a single universe. Uni-
verse expansion subsequent to Big Bang has led to successive
local condensations at expanding scales of dimension that allow
"objectivity" to achieve meaning. It is nevertheless only an
approximation to attribute "identity" to any piece of the uni-
verse-to any "object" (including a human being). From a quan-
tum standpoint the entire universe is interconnected; there is a
single universal quantum state.
Berkeley quantum cosmologists are seeking a mathematical
model that will cover transition from pre-Big Bang (no space-
time) to the present epoch. We are striving to represent an
asymptotic tendency of quantum-dynamical evolution to
approach a semiclassical limit. We hope isolation of local particle
collections from the rest of the universe will be recognizable as an
approximation that asymptotically increases in accuracy-
thereby providing a basis not only for Galilean science but for the
language with which your nonscientific questions were posed.
 Geoffrey F. Chew 35

Although I am unsure that quantum cosmology is a sound

track, I find it more satisfying than other cosmologies to which I
have been exposed. So I here shall react to your questions from
the quantum cosmological viewpoint, assuming asymptotic ten-
dency toward a zero-density semiclassical universe (flat space-
time). To achieve such asymptotics a very special quantum state
is required, together with a very special evolution generator. The
puzzle· of quantum cosmology is: how many different quantum
regimes can lead to semiclassical asymtopia? To find even one is
difficult and not yet achieved. I personally incline to believe there
is only one choice-in other words, that we are situated within a
"bootstrap" universe-determined uniquely by the requirement
of consistency.
Now to your questions: The foregoing quantum-evolu-
tionary view removes need to distinguish sharply between "liv-
ing" and "nonliving" matter. "Life", including Homo sapiens, is
only one aspect of structure evolving as the universe expands.
(Dyson, by the way, has speculated about life in a distant future
where DNA, or in fact any molecule, is no longer sustainable.)
Nevertheless, an interesting question is whether "conscious life"
capable of "free will" involves aspects of the universal quantum
state that fail to show up in the semiclassical concept of "parti-
cle". The content of our quantum state is not entirely representa-
ble through particles. Suppose the missing quantum component
is involved in the phenomena of "consciousness" and "free will".
To the extent that the laws of physics are completely expressible
through the "particle" notion, one would thereby understand
why free will lies outside physics.
A related feature of our quantum cosmology is that its strict
determinism is not manifested through "time"; the ordinary
meaning of time emerges as an asymptotic semiclassical approx-
imation connected to energy (carried by particles). Our quantum
determinism is expressed through a dimensionless evolution
parameter, whereas "time" is defined as the monotonically-
increasing expectation value of a certain operator with dimen-
sion +1 in an asymptotic domain where fluctuations of the oper-
ator become small. The fluctuations, however, are not zero so we
do not have strict "time" determinism. To the extent that "ob-
servers" are "conscious" of "time" (and not of the dimensionless
quantum-evolution parameter), "free will" acting in conjunction
with a "physical universe" may be compatible with a determin-
istic quantum cosmology.
36 Astronomers, Mothemoticions, and Physicists

The vagueness of the foregoing reflects our theory's prelim-

inary stage of development. We are presently lacking a theoret-
ical representation of physical measurement-explaining how,
in a large and dilute universe, collections of particles and particle
interactions may become approximately isolated-in the pattern
described by the Galilean-Copenhagen language of "observa-
ble", "observer", and "observation". (Implicit in these words is
observer "consciousness".)
Appeal to God may be needed to answer the "origin" ques-
tion, 'Why should a quantum universe evolving toward a semi-
classical limit be consistent?" (I doubt that consistency will be
established through mathematics.)
 4
How Is It Possible to Exclude Action Coming
from a Transcendent Order of Being?
Professor Alexandre Favre

• Born 23 February 1911

• Dr. es Scis., University of Paris, 1937; Prix Marquet, Academy of Scien-

ces; additional awards include: Officier Legion d'honneur; Officier
Ordre national du Merite; Commander des Palmes academiques

• Currently Director of the Institut de Mecanique Statistique de la Turbu-

lence, Universite d'Aix-Marseill

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: inventor, hypersusten-

tation by moving wall (1934); hyperconvention by moving wall (1951 );
centrifugal sub-trans-supersonic compressor (1940-used for aircraft
jet engines since 1944); apparatus for statistical measurement of cor-
relation coefficient with time delay (1942); appliance for detection of
random noise from periodic signals by autocorrelation (1952); initiator
space-time correlation measurements in turbulent flows (1942);
research on development of statistical equations for turbulent com-
pressible gas (1948)

The sciences are rational disciplines for objective knowledge

based on the observation of repeatable and verifiable phenom-
ena in order to group them under common laws. But their
domains are limited; when problems are solved, others appear.
The process diverges, showing that the sciences are incapable of
reaching total and ultimate reality.
Philosophy and religion may overstep the bounds of the
sciences but must take account of scientific knowledge. The
sciences, then, have a negative and a positive role. The negative
role is catharsis, to eliminate in philosophy assumptions which
contradict scientific observations and to eliminate in religion
superstitions and idolatries. The positive role is to disclose the
organization of nature, to try to explain it rationally, and to give
new general ideas.

37
38 Aslronomers, Malhemalicians, and Physicists

In a scientific and philosophical reflection De la Causalite a la

Finlilite a propos de la Turbulence (A. Favre, H. and J. Guitton, A
Lichnerowicz, E. Wolff, eds., Paris: Maloine, 1988), we examined
the behavior of the atmosphere-hydrosphere-life ecosystem.
This ecosystem exhibits an organization with regulation, opti-
mization, and convergence in favor of life, which is characteristic
not only of causality but also of teleonomy.
There are inadequacies with explanations of these observa-

I tions by chance, by creation of order through disorder, by the

sole adaptation of living organisms to their medium, and by the
\ extrapolation of determinism to describe both the universe and
I human actions.
There is compatibility between determinism and necessity,
contingency, liberty, complexity. Turbulent flows are deter-
ministic and have regulating mean effects. Teleonomy is the
global cause of the convergence of the causes.
It seems to me that three main types of explanations should
be considered.
Some philosophical theories affirm the necessity of causalist
laws of nature, excluding teleonomy and all action other than
that of these laws or any action coming from a transcendent
order of being, and affirm the self-organization of matlfr. I think
that matter, inanimate matter or living substance, exhibits
behavior that is consistent with the laws of nature indeed. But we
have found that these laws have causalistic and teleonomic charac-
teristics. It is difficult for me to believe that living organisms,
especially the simplest, are able to exhibit teleonomic behavior
purely by following causalist laws by themselves. It is even more
difficult for me to believe that non-living matter-such as air and
water-is able to exhibit teleonomic behavior in favor of life in
the atmosphere-hydrosphere system by itself. As for actions
coming from a transcendent order, how is it possible to exclude
them without ignoring the limitations of the world?
Other theories affirm the necessity (consistent with contin-
gency and liberty) of the laws of nature, causalist and teleonomic,
in favor of life, without any action coming from a transcendent
order of being, from the "outside world", and affirm the existence
of spirituality. I think that spirituality does exist in the world. It
appears first in the human spirit which is the manifestation of
self-consciousness. But how can we exclude a priori any other
spirit than the human spirit while we are unable to understand
wholly the organization of the universe? These theories lead to
 Alexandre Favre 39

pantheism, materialist or spiritualist. But again, how is it possible

to exclude any action coming from a transcendent order of being,
from the "outside world", without ignoring the limitation of the
world?
Other theories affirm the necessity (consistent with contin-
gency and liberty) of the laws of nature, causalist and teleonomic,
in favor of life and affirm the existence of a transcendent organ-
izing power. These theories are not inconsistent with scientific
observations and seem to me more satisfactory. The idea of the
existence of a transcendent power is a great mystery, but are not
the sciences permanently at the borders of mysteries that they
solve progressively, without ever being able to reach ultimate
reality?
To answer the question asked about the relationship
between religion and science, I have not found in my scientific
experience anything that contradicts religious faith. Indeed the
observation of teleonomy internal to the various sciences has
confirmed such faith.
 5
Where Matter and Consciousness Came from
Is Unknown
Professor John Erik Fornaess

• Born 14 October 1946

• Ph.D. in mathematics, University of Washington, 1974

• Currently Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University

• Professor Fornaess on:

the origin of the universe: "The physics of the first fraction of the first
second is unknown. Where mailer came from is also unknown. It is
also unknown where consciousness came from".

the origin of life and of Homo sapiens: "The origin of life came
about under favorable chemical conditions .... Human beings arose
this way as well".

God: "I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to
the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to
superclusters of galaxies".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
I believe that religion should play no role in the development of
science. Conversely science should play no essential role in
religion.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
The origin of the universe was via the Big Bang some fifteen
billion years ago. The physics of the first fraction of the first
second is unknown. Where matter came from is also unknown. It
is also unknown where consciousness came from.

40
 John Erik Fornoess 41

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

The origin of life came about under favorable chemical condi-
tions. Lumps of matter which developed and divided into equal
lumps were formed. Chance mutations developed more
advanced forms. Human beings arose this way as well.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
We don't have any idea where the basic ingredients of the uni-
verse came from. The best approach to this is probably physics.
The origin of life is less mysterious. I don't think conscious-
ness can be explained as arising from matter.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the
universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings
to superclusters of galaxies.
 6
God Is a Characteristic of the Real Universe
Professor Conyers Herring

• Born 15 November 1914

• Ph.D. in physics, Princeton University, 1937; awards include Oliver E.

Buckley Solid State Physics Prize of the American Physical Society
(1959); Von Hippe! Award of the Materials Research Society (1980);
and the Wolf Prize in Physics (1985)

• Currently Professor Emeritus of Applied Physics, Stanford University

• Areas of specialization include theoretical research on electronic and

atomic properties of solids

• Professor Herring on:

the origin of the universe: "Speculations and models having to do
with the origin of the universe have a very legitimate place in science'·.
the origin of life and of Homo sopiens; '' ... we should not expect
our present thinking to parallel that of the writers of ancient religious
scriptures, who were interested in getting at truths of a very different
kind, more closely related to everyday life".
God: "Things such as truth, goodness, even happiness, are achieva-
ble by virtue of a force that is always present, in the here and now and
available to me personally".

· 1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
Religion provides, or should provide, the framework and per-
spective for all aspects of living. Thus it should guide a scientist's
attitudes toward scientific truth, "scientific method", scientific
ethics, and so forth. For the layman its role in these matters is
more limited, but even the layman needs to have some sort of
orientation toward the significance of knowledge and the role of

42
 Conyers Herring 43

science. But the role of religion, unlike that of science, extends

beyond the merely intellectual into the affective and emutional
aspects of living.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Speculations and models having to do with the origin of the
universe have a very legitimate place in science, since they can
help us to conceptualize the universe we observe in an efficient
manner and make useful predictions about it. However, ques-
tions like, Did God exist prior to the Big Bang? are meaningless.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Not being a biologist or even a chemist, I won't try to express an
opinion on the question whether or not any as yet unknown
physical laws or mechanism may have to be invoked to account
for the origin of life. However, I think it is perfectly meaningful
and worthwhile to argue about the mechanisms involved, since
any insights we get might guide us in establishing future rela-
tions with other "living" beings elsewhere in the universe. Cer-
tainly we should not expect our present thinking to parallel that
of the writers of ancient religious scriptures, who were interested
in getting at truths of a very different kind, more closely related
to everyday life.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

My attitudes on this question are similar to those on Question 3
above.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
Again, I think I've largely covered this under Question 3. In
general I think the scientist should seek a picture that is as intel-
lectually harmonious as possible and that is as effective as possi-
ble in predicting and controlling natural phenomena in the pres-
ent and future.
44 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
We live in a hard, real universe to which we have to adapt. God
is a characteristic of that universe-indeed, a miraculous charac-
teristic-that makes that adaptation possible. Things such as
truth, goodness, even happiness, are achievable, by virtue of a
force that is always present, in the here and now and available to
me personally. I reject the idea of a God who long ago set a great
clockwork in motion and has since been sitting back as a specta-
tor while mankind wrestles with the puzzle. One reason for my
rejection of this is that my scientific experience gives me no rea-
son to believe that there is any "clockwork" model of the uni-
verse that is ultimately and finally the correct one. Our scientific
theories always work with such models, and they will always be
capable of greater and greater refinement, but I feel sure they will
always prove imperfect. It is safer, I think, to have faith in the
living force that makes this improvement always possible.
 7
What Forces Filled the Universe with Energy
Fifteen Billion Years Ago?
Professor Robert Jastrow

• Born 7 September 1925

• Ph.D. in theoretical physics, Columbia University, 1948

• Currently Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College, and Direc-

tor, Goddard Institute of Space Studies

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: study of nuclear and

atmospheric physics; physics of moon and terrestrial planets; works
include Exploration of Space, 1960; Red Giants and White Dwarfs,
1967; God and the Astronomers, 1978

• Professor Jastrow on:

the origin of the universe: "The fact that the universe was once in a
dense, hot state is considered proven by almost every scientist".
the origin of life: "Everything I have studied ... adds up to a plau-
sible explanation as to how life could have sprung from non-living
matter .... But that's my opinion. Nobody has demonstrated that life,
even a simple bacterium, can evolve from a broth of molecules .... as
a result of my scientific studies, I have a deeply rooted belief in the
philosophies of reductionism and materialism-the view that the
whole is equal to the sum of the parts-even with respect to questions
relating to life and mind".
the origin of Homosapiens: "Advanced thinkers in theology-I think
the majority-take the view that no contradiction exists whatsoever
between their faith and the facts of evolution".
God: "I suppose a series of miracles could demonstrate to me that
forces are al work in the universe that are utterly outside the reach of
human comprehension and that is as cl,pse as I can come to the pro-
position of a proof for the existence of a Creator".

1 On what grounds do you consider the Big Bang theory a more plausible
explanation for the origin of the universe than the Oscillating Universe
and the Steady State theories?
The fact that the universe was once in a dense, hot state is con-
sidered proven by almost every scientist, through the discovery
of the primordial fireball radiation and the measurement of the

45
 46 Astronomers, Mathema1icions, and Physicists

spectrum-the distribution of intensity with frequency-which

is exactly what you would expect of the radiation emanating
from the fireball of an explosion.
'\ That fireball radiation proves that the universe was once in
an explosive state, and this proves that the Steady State theory is
not correct.
.\.,.'"\ The Oscillating Universe theory is consistent with the fireball
' .J radiation, because it is possible that the universe collapses and
explodes repeatedly. But the evidence is against that, because
the latest word is that there is not enough matter in the universe
to halt the expansion and bring the universe together again.
Furthermore each time the universe collapses, it melts down the
world that existed, and if it does emerge from the collapse, an
entirely new world results. This is so far beyond our experience
in religion or in science that it seems to me it is not worth talking
about. Let's talk about the universe we have, which is the one
you and I are in. That universe began in a cosmic explosion fifteen
'(,
\'
- billion years ago, and the question arises as to what forces
brought about that event. The reply of the cosmologist is that the
circumstances of that explosion make it impossible to answer
that question by scientific methods.
So, one of the most important questions in the history of
human thought, namely: Why do we exist?, or How did we get
here?, turns out to have an answer that is beyond the reach of
scientific inquiry. That is the point that seems to me to be
interesting.

2 What are your views on the conception of an Inflationary Universe?

An Inflationary Universe which springs out of nothing like a
bubble seems to me to be so artificial a construct of the theorist's
imagination that I find it not to my taste at all. Theoretical phys-
icists are very fond of this kind of speculation. They let their
mathematics run wild but may be anchored to very little in the
way of observation.
We have one piece of evidence about what the universe was
like when it was roughly a million years old, and that is the
existence of the primordial fireball radiation and its spectrum. We
have one isolated datum that yields information about the uni-
verse when it was three minutes old, and that is the ratio of
primordial hydrogen to helium. We have no information what-
soever about what happened in the universe when it was
younger than three minutes, and in particular, when it was 10-43
 Roberl Joslrow 47

second old, and so on. It seems to me naive to construct elaborate

theories that propose to answer profound philosophical and re-
ligious as well as scientific questions, on the basis of speculation
about an area never touched, directly or indirectly, by ob-
servation.

3 What do you think of the apparent conclusion of the Stephen Hawking-

Roger Penrose paper "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and
Cosmology" (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1970) that
space and time hod on origin?
What does that mean? That there was a state in which there was
no universe? As a point of language, you can say, as Augustine
did, that time began when God created the world. So, if you wish,
you can use that kind of language. But what does it mean? That
phrase you used calls for more explanation. Most people want to
know the answer to the question of origins, of the First Cause. It's
a deeply felt need.

4 On the level of common sense, the layperson implicitly takes it for granted
that something cannot come from nothing.
I think he is right. I'll take the ordinary man on the street and his
common sense wisdom over the theorists.

5 Do you think the origin of life can be explained purely in terms of physics
and chemistry?
What commands my attention is the uncertainty regarding the
probability that this would happen. It is clear that it has happened
once, but that it may happen or has happened more than once is
unclear. In fact, scientific knowledge of the probability of life's
origin may tell us that we are alone in the universe. Everything I
have studied that relates to the properties of the atmosphere of
the young earth, the conditions on the young earth, the Urey-
Miller experiments, and the like-all that adds up to a plausible
explanation as to how life could have sprung from non-living
matter. To assume some higher organizing principle outside and
above these physical and chemical laws is unnecessary in my
view. But that's my opinion. Nobody has demonstrated that life,
even a simple bacterium, can evolve from a broth of molecules.

6 How about the theory of evolution as it relates to theism?

Advanced thinkers in theology-I think the majority-take the
view that no contradiction exists whatsoever between their faith
48 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

and the facts of evolution. It is often said that the universe is a

continuous act of Creation, that it is a continuously unfolding
story whose details could indeed be explained by natural selec-
tion. The essence of this thought is that natural selection is the
way God works. In other words, there is a process that has some
guidance from above, but the details are correctly described by
the Darwinists.

7 What in your view would constitute evidence for the existence of a

Creator?
This is a problem I have: I am still lacking in religious belief. My
view is that of the agnostic. I feel you cannot prove the existence
of God, any more than my scientific friends can disprove his
existence. I suppose a series of miracles could demonstrate to me
that forces are at work in the universe that are utterly outside the
reach of human comprehension and that is as close as I can come
to the proposition of a proof for the existence of a Creator.
For me, the difficulty is that as a result of my scientific studies,
I have a deeply rooted belief in the philosophies of reductionism
and materialism-the view that the whole is equal to the sum of
the parts-even with respect to questions relating to life and
mind.

8 But isn't the perception of God's existence also a matter of personal

experience for an individual who is a religious believer?
Perhaps these matters will be illuminated for me at some later
time. At the moment-at this stage in my life-I can only per-
ceive that there exist things in the world to which science has no
answers, and maybe those things add up to God's existence.
There are many faces to reality, and many voices in the universe.
Perhaps there are other voices to be heard than those the scien-
tist can hear.
So that is where I am. This is an approach to the existence of
God that is very amorphous. That is the direction in which my
thoughts are carrying me. But I am not there yet and may never
reach that point.

9 Is the Anthropic Principle relevant to the question of God's existence?

On the face of it, this proves the existence of God as well as
scientific evidence can. But I believe that there is another expla-
nation for it.
 Robert Jastrow 49

10 In his recent book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking states: "If
the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it
would have neither beginning nor end: ii would simply be. What place,
then, for a creator?" Could you comment on the idea that the universe
has no boundary or edge, an idea Hawking describes as speculation?
A universe without a boundary means a "closed" universe-one
which oscillates between expansion and contraction, instead of
expanding forever. At the end of each contraction stage, the uni-
verse is once more in a dense, hot state, in which everything that
formed in the previous stage of expansion-every star, planet,
and form of life-is melted down and destroyed. In such a uni-
verse, there is an infinite number of replays of the Big Bang. It is
true, in a formal sense, that in such a universe there is no true
beginning-only an infinite repetition of beginnings and end-
ings. But for those who exist in each cycle, there is indeed a
beginning-the particular Big Bang that led to their existence.
And there is an end-the melting down of all organized forms of 1
matter that precedes the next Big Bang.
I find this all rather formaL as I suggested earlier, and devoid
of meaning. One can only say again that all the accepted scientific
evidence indicates that about fifteen billion years ago, the uni-
verse of which we are now a part was in a very dense, very hot
state. It had at that time no stars, no planets, no life-not even
any atoms. But the seed of everything that exists today was
planted, in a material sense, in that moment. It was literally the
moment of Creation. That is as close to scientific evidence for a
beginning as one can come. I do not know the meaning of saying,
in the light of these circumstances, that there may have been no
beginning.
For me, the interesting question is that posed by Leibniz,
namely: Why is there something rather than nothing? What
forces filled the universe with energy fifteen billion years ago?
These are questions of metaphysics-or theology-not physics,
but they are very interesting.
 8
There Need Be No Ultimate Conflict between
Science and Religion
Professor B. D. Josephson

• Born 4 January 1940

• Ph.D. in physics, Cambridge University, 1964; Nobel Prize for Physics

(shared with Leo Esaki and lv·ar Giaever), 1973; received the Nobel
Prize "for his theoretical predictions of the properties of a supercurrent
through a tunnel barrier, in particular those phenomena which are
generally known as the Josephson effect"

• Currently Professor of Physics, Cambridge University

1 Do you see any conflict between science and religion?

I don't see a conflict. There are conflicts between the views of
many scientists on religion, but I think there need be no ultimate
conflict. Science may be capable of extension in a way that is
compatible with the tenets of religion.

2 Traditional concepts of a Creator entail such attributes as infinite

perfection. Is this incompatible with what we know of the universe?
I take a slightly modified form of this in the sense that I presume
that the Creator acts in as perfect a way as possible, but still there
are problems which are unresolvable.

3 On what basis do you believe in such a Creator?

My experiences in meditation result in such a view.

4 Do you experience such a reality?

Yes. Rather dimly. But sometimes I experience something that I
can be in interaction with, which results in some of the problems
and tensions being resolved.

50
 9
The Exquisite Order of the Physical World
Calls for the Divine
Professor Vera Kistiakowsky

• Born 9 September 1928

• Ph.D. in physics, University of California, 1952

• Currently Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: experimental nuclear

physics, elementary high energy particle physics, astrophysics; author
or co-author of over one hundred papers published in scientific jour-
nals and of over one hundred and twenty papers presented at profes-
sional meetings; in 1969 she and two friends, Elisabeth Baranger, a
theoretical nuclear physicist, and Vera Pless, a mathematician, started
a Boston area group called WISE (Women in Science and Engineer-
ing); president of the Association of Women in Science in 1982 and
1983

• Professor Kistiakowsky on:

the origin of the universe: · 'There remains the question of how the
Big Bang was initiated, but it seems unlikely that science will be able to
elucidate this .... the exquisite order displayed by our scientific
understanding of the physical world calls for the divine".
the origin of life:·· . .. the whole process is miraculous, from the for-
mation of the first complex molecules lo the evolution of human
intelligence".
the origin of Homo sopiens: "There are still gaps to be filled ... but
in principle these can be filled".
God: "I am satisfied with the existence of an unknowable source of
divine order and purpose ... "

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
I think that religion and science are two different approaches to
understanding existence. Their domains do not overlap com-
pletely. Religion deals with ethical and spiritual matters that are
explicitly not the concern of science, and science asks a quantita-

51
52 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

tive understanding of the material world that is irrelevant to

religion. The tension between science and religion arises in the
regions where they do overlap, three of which are taken up in the
next questions. Since religious writings usually date to periods of
history when scientific understanding of these questions was
non-existent or much less extensive than it is now, there is a clash
between the religious portrayal of the particular origin and the
current scientific knowledge on that question. I think that it
should be acknowledged that religious writing, however
divinely inspired, was the product of a human living in a partic-
ular period with a particular understanding of the world. In the
same way a contemporary scientific result is the product of a
human attempt to understand the world, guided by certain cri-
teria of objectivity, but still limited by the training of the mind
that produces it. With this understanding, there is no conflict
between religion and science. I would not presume to say what
their relationship should be for others, but for me they are com-
plementary, dealing with different spheres.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Cosmology, astrophysics, and the theory of particles and fields
have in recent years combined to give us a very coherent theory
for the origin of the universe. There are still problems and unre-
solved questions; astrophysics data are not easy to obtain and
calculations are not always possible. If accepted as a still evolving
understanding, I am comfortable with our current scientific
account. There remains the question of how the Big Bang \\'.!3,S
initiated, but it seems unlikely that science will be able to eluci-
d~tethls. The question which is not in the realm of science is, For
what purpose? and it is with this that religion can deal uniquely.
It is a question that many, including many scientists, consider
unnecessary. However, there does seem to be a human drive to
find a purpose in existence and thus invoke the will of God in
Creation. My acculturation as a scientist makes me uncom-
fortable with this, but the exquisite order displayed by our scien-
tific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
 Vera Kisliakowsky 53

I am not well-educated on this topic scientifically, but my under-

standing is that although research has been closing the gap
between the animate and the inanimate, a gap remains. I would
not be surprised if this connection were also made. For me, the
whole process is miraculous, from the formation of the first com-
plex molecules to the evolution of human intelligence.

4 What is ydur view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

There are still gaps to be filled with respect to the scientific
understanding of the details of the evolution of man, but in prin-
ciple these can filled. The question of why remains the province
of religion.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
A dear distinction should be made between the s~!'tific (how)
questions and the i:_eligious (why) questions, and scientists in
their professional capacity should restrict themselves to the
former. Their opinions on the latter should not be given especial
weight because of their profession but should be respected in
direct proportion to the philosophical and theological profundity
of the opinions.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
I believe that God exists but do not have a personal understand-
ing of what this means. The picture held by others of a Being
which exists in some real area of the universe I find at best unnec-
essary. I am satisfied with the existence of an unknowable source
of divine order and purpose and do not find this in conflict with
being a practicing Christian. The biblical account and the details
of church services represent attempts by other humans to deal
with the unknowable, and I respect them as such.
 10
Was It Planned, Is It Part of a
Grander Scheme of Things?
Professor William A. Little

• Born 17 November 1930

• Ph.D. in physics, Rhodes, 1955

• Currently Professor of Physics, Stanford University

• Areas of specialization: organic fluorescence; magnetic resonance;

low temperature physics; superconductivity; phase transition; chem-
ical physics

• Professor Little on:

the origin of the universe: "I go along with the Big Bang picture but
recognize that ii does not address the deeper issue as to why it hap-
pened-was it planned, is it part of a grander scheme of things?"
the origin of life: "It is hard to believe that all this just happened as a
result of the initial conditions. In fact, if that is how it happened, it is all
the more remarkable!"
the origin of Homo sapiens: "I go along with evolution!"
God: "I ... might go along with some form of 'intelligence' asso-
ciated with matter, energy, and the universe".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
Religion, as I see it in everyday life, seems more to be concerned
with social issues than with the fundamental questions of God
and Creation. I think that many scientists, and physicists in par-
ticular, are closer to these latter, deeper questions than those in
religious studies, as a result of our study of astrophysics, quan-
tum mechanics, relativity, and so on.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?

54
 William A Litlle 55

I go along with the Big Bang picture but recognize that it does not
address the deeper issue as to why it happened-was it planned,
is it part of a grander scheme of things? It is an impressive
accomplishment to have all we see about us result from a few
laws of physics, lots of energy, and a great deal of patience! It is
hard to believe that there isn't more to it than this.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
The origin of life gets me into the same kind of trouble. It is hard
to believe that all this just happened as a result of the initial
conditions. In fact, if that is how it happened, it is all the more
remarkable! What seems to be missing in the scientific models as
they stand today is the absence of any explanation of a driving
force or "urge to survive" which I think many of us feel exists in
some sense and which could probably be defined in some math-
ematical sense.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

This bothers me less than the others. I go along with evolution!
The way DNA, protein, and the various enzymes work even in
the simplest creatures and plants is impressive enough to me,
that the antics of Homo sapiens are less remarkable.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
I like the "scientific" approach which continues to ask probing
and testable questions. In this way it has been possible to push
the need for a vital force further and further into the background
and to define better and better what still remains of the need. If
we do not do it this way it becomes metaphysical and one cannot
get an answer of a physical kind.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
Many prominent scientists have considered the concept of God
very seriously; I am sure this is true. But I think the views they
have had of God have generally been rather different from those
of the clergy. I do not think of God as an old man with a white
beard, but might go along with some form of "intelligence" asso-
ciated with matter, energy, and the universe. I guess I would be
56 Aslronomers, Mothemolicions, ond Physicists

pleasantly intrigued, rather than hostile, and not totally sur-

prised, by a discovery that unveiled a deeper meaning to our
universe, indicative of some such underlying intelligence. I am, of
course, thinking of a piece of physical evidence-a leopard does not
change his spots.
 11
The Laws of Nature Are Created by God
Professor Henry Margenau

• Born 30 April 1901

• Ph.D. in physics, Yale University, 1929

• Currently Emeritus Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics and Natural

Philosophy, Yale University

• Accomplishments: President of the American Association for the Phi-

losophy of Science, 1954-1964; former editor of Journal of the Philos-
ophy of Science, American Journal of Science, Review of Modern
Physics, Main Currents of Modern Thought, and other journals; works
include Foundations of Physics (with R.B. Lindsay), 1943; Physics: Prin-
ciples and Applications, 1949; The Nature of Physical Reality, 1950;
Integrative Principles of Modern Thought, 1972
• Professor Margenau on:
the origin ofthe universe: "God created the universe out of nothing
in an act which also brought time into existence".
the origin of life:' 'The occurrence of life arose in perfect accordance
with the laws of nature".
the origin of Homo sopiens: " ... Homo sapiens is physically an
evolutionary follower of the two-legged ape .... But God endowed
man with a soul''.

There exists a widespread view that regards science and religion

in general as incompatible. Let me therefore point out, first of all,
that this belief may have been true half a century ago but has
now lost its validity as may be seen by any one who reads the
philosophical writings of the most distinguished and creative
physicists of the last five decades. I am referring here to men like
Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, Wigner, and
many others.
Theories like the Big Bang, black holes, quantum theory, rel-
ativity, and the Anthropic Principle have introduced science to a
world of awe and mystery that is not far removed from the ulti-

57
58 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

mate mystery that drives the religious impulse. These twentieth-

century trends seem to call for a new metaphor in describing the
relationship of science and religion.
Nowhere is the tension between science and religion more
pronounced than in the origin issues: the origin of the universe,
the origin of life, and the origin of Homo sapiens. As a scientist and
a philosopher of science for over forty years, I have reflected on
these questions in my books Foundations of Physics, The Nature of
Physical Reality, and The Miracle of Existence.
These issues have now drawn me to an even more extensive
exploration. I would like to map modern scientific perspectives
on these issues. To this end, I have compiled views on the three
main origin issues from some of the most noted scientists of the
present day, and these views are presented in this anthology. I
have below my responses to the six questions which form the
fundamental framework of Cosmos, Bios, Theos:

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
The first question concerns the relation between science and
religion. It has been of interest to the editors of this book for many
years. I have written two books, one of them dealing with the
epistemology of science, 1 the other relating it to religion.2 I will
therefore take the liberty to present my view here in personal
terms. A book entitled Science and Religion by Harold Schilling3 is
also recommended, for it contains a large number of factual
instances allowing comparisons between the two fields.
Science deals with the laws of nature as they are understood
by man. They are based on observations made by man including
experiments, that is, experiments arranged or made possible by
human intervention. In addition to them the laws are designed to
account for phenomena independent of human preparation,
such as occur in astronomy, many parts of physics and chemis-
try, and, perhaps with restricted frequency, in biological scien-
ces, which include medicine.
There is a simple scheme which formulates the method by
which science advances. It will here be briefly reviewed and
illustrated. In Figure 1, P represents the "plane of perceptions", to
the left of it lies the C-field of conscious mental responses to the
perceptions. The P-plane extends in and out of the paper, and the
C-field is three-dimensional. The letter C stands for "construct",
not "concept", a term which designates a set ofrelated constructs.
 Henry Margenau 59

Double lines connecting specific ob- p

servations, that is, measurements C
(points on the P-plane) with con-
structs, represent what in my earlier
writings I called "rules of correspon-
dence". They are identical with the
term "operational definition" in the
language of the famous Professor
Bridgman, who was a friend of mine. Nature
Finally, I note that the formulation of
laws of nature involves first the com-
bination of constructs into concepts
which are combinations of measure-
ments, and then the application of
mathematics.
The theory of knowledge, the
epistemology I have formulated here,
applies to physics, chemistry, biol- FIGURE l
ogy, and their combinations, but not
to psychology and the arts. It does lead to all the laws of nature
but does not account for their origin. They surely could not have
developed by chance or accident. What, then, is the.answer to the
question concerning the origin of the innumerable laws of
nature? I know only one answer that is adequate to their univer-
sal validity: they were created by God.
The preceding epistemological considerations led me to a
study of the physical processes performed by the human brain,
which are most clearly discussed in the works of Sir John Eccles,
the famous neurophysiologist. Many of the entities involved are
of atomic and molecular size and mass, and their behavior cannot
be described exclusively by classical physics: it requires the use
of quantum mechanics. This means that the description of a brain
state, which has not yet been achieved as a totality, will appear in
the form
'l' = 'l'1 (X1) 'l'2 (X2) 'l'3 (X3) · · ·'l'n (xn)
where each is a Schrodinger-type state function satisfying the
rules of quantum mechanics. This requires that
l'l' 12 dx1 dx2 ... dxn = 1
Each l'l'1 j2 defines a probability, not a classical state for which the
coordinates are known precisely. Hence the total state of the
60 Astronomers, Mathemalicians, and Physicists

brain at any time defines a probability (not a classical state) for

which the coordinates are known precisely. Hence the total state
of the brain at any time defines a probability, not a fixed coordi-
nation of individual values x1.
In ordinary terms this means that if the brain determines the
mind, it too will be at any time in a state of probability; physics
alone will not determine its behavior. From its physical condition
we cannot predict the action which it induces the body to per-
form; we are forced to assign to it the power to select from actions
it is capable of performing for physical reasons: we conclude that
the mind can choose actions which physics permits. In other
words: there is freedom of the will. The mind is not a mere mech-
anism but has a choice. Quantum mechanics accounts for free-
dom of the will.
The preceding discussion of the interaction between the
human mind and the brain leads us to comment briefly on the
mind-body problem in general. The enormous success which has
been achieved in the construction of mechanical computers has
convinced many scientists and others that a perfect mechanical
computer, a robot, could be identified with our mind. In other
words, our mind is identified as a highly complex and perfect
mechanical device, a robot, which acts in complete accordance
with the laws of nature. This view omits, of course, what was
presented in the foregoing section concerning the actions of the
human brain and mind. It converts psychology into a branch of
physics and chemistry.
This conclusion, however, encounters a grave difficulty at the
very beginning of the effort to establish it. Physics and chemistry
deal exclusively with fundamental quantities subject to opera-
tional definitions: force equals mass times acceleration, energy
equals Planck's constant times frequency of light, and so forth.
But how do we define, or measure, mental states? We speak of
brilliant joy, a dark mood, deep sorrow, but know of no quantita-
tive way of measuring such states. This is generally true of the
laws through which the states of our mind are connected. Psy-
chology is devoid of operational definitions, although attempts
are sometimes made to establish them.
Several decades ago, a friend of mine, a distinguished psy-
chologist, performed an experiment in which he attempted to
establish mathematical laws of psychology in terms of measur-
able and meaningful quantities. He designed an apparatus which
exerted a measurable force on a patient's arm. As the force
 Henry Margenau 61

increased, the pressure on the arm increased, and the patient

reported when he felt the change in pressure. This began to
establish a relation between pressure and intensity of sensation.
It turned out that at the beginning of the experiment the pressure
felt was proportional to the logarithm of the stimulating force,
but as the pressure increased and resulted in the beginning of
pain in the patient's arm, the law broke down.
The language used to describe mental states, which is devoid
of operational definitions, is thus forced to use metaphors. We
speak of "brilliant joy", "a dark mood", "deep thought", and
many similar non-operational combinations. What all this means
is that the mind cannot be treated as a body; it is a unique entity
which affects and regulates the human body. Animals, too, have
minds which affect their behavior; they are similar to ours but
different in one fundamental way: they lack ethics and religion,
and their freedom of the will is limited by physical circum-
stances.
The relationship between religion and science must in my
opinion be further described as follows: every science faces as an
abstract foundation two problems-the discovery of the laws of
nature and their application for the maintenance and the welfare
of mankind. The definition of a law seems clear, but I should add
here that by nature I refer to the total universe, not merely to the
natural phenomenon Earth.
In order to be accepted by scientists a law of nature must
p9ssess three important properties: simplicity, extensibility (that is,
applicability to all similar observable phenomena), and a kind of
mathematical and philosophical elegance. This third property is
sought, but not always obtained. For instance, the force between
two spheres of mass m was found by Newton to be proportional
to m2fr2, r being the distance between their centers. Recently a
physicist claimed to have discovered that the exponent 2 in the
denominator of this expression differed slightly from 2• Even
now, every physicist seems disappointed by this result and
efforts are being made to prove it false.
Now arises the question: What is the origin of the laws of
nature? For this I can find only one convincing answer. they are
created by God, and God is omnipotent and omniscient. In my
latest book ([he Miracle of Existence) I called Him "the Universal
Mind" and suggested that every human soul is a part of Him.
This conception of God is not to be confused with some crude
version of pantheism (since pantheism identifies the world with
62 Astronomers, Molhemolicions, ond Physicists

God and is therefore tantamount to atheism): every human soul

is a part of God in the highly specialized sense of modern quan-
tum physics and in the sense understood by the great mystics
like St. Paul, who talked of the Ultimate Reality "in whom we
move and live and have our being".
Hence my answer to Question 1: Science needs religion in
order to account for its origin and its successes. I discussed this
view with Einstein when I did research at the Institute for
Advanced Study at Princeton in 1932 and remember his com-
ment: ''The discovery of a fundamental, verified law of nature is
an inspiration of God".
There is a common belief that science rejects miracles. But
what, in precise terms, is a miracle? I suppose the answer has to
reflect the fact that science is not yet, and probably will never be,
a complete system of explanation. It is important to keep this
reservation in the background of our considerations. The exis-
tence of man, indeed of the entire universe, has long been
regarded as a miracle, incomprehensible without assuming the
existence of a Creator who is omnipotent and omniscient. But did
it violate the laws of nature? During this century the Big Bang
theory was formulated and confirmed. A very small but ex-
tremely massive sphere of matter, in many respects similar to a
black hole, could spring out of nothing without violating any
known law of nature. To be sure, it would be most unsatisfactory
to regard this as an accident. God, however, created not only the
physical universe but also the laws which it has to obey. This
latter fact is often ignored, not only by certain biologists but by
theologians as well. Schleiermacher, to be sure, was an exception.
For he said in his Speeches to the German Nation: the existence of the
laws of nature is the greatest of all miracles.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also
brought time into existence. Recent discoveries, such as observa-
tions supporting the Big Bang and similar astronomical phenom-
ena, are wholly compatible with this view.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
The occurrence of life arose in perfect accordance with the laws
of nature. Plant life and, in fact, some elementary forms of animal
 Henry Margenau 63

life developed in harmony with Darwin's theory of evolution,

which does not contradict Christian and other religious doc-
trines. There is one aspect, however, on which I would like to
elaborate briefly.
Recently my daily newspaper, the New Haven Register, cited a
book titled The Mystery of Life's Origin written by three scientists.
It said: "They explain that life would not have started by chance
and argue that a Creator beyond the cosmos is the most plausible
explanation for life's origin". Supporting this view the article
mentions that the British astronomer Fred Hoyle is widely noted
for the statement that believing the first cell originated by chance
is like believing a tornado ripping through a junk yard full of
airplane parts could produce a Boeing 747. Other similar exam-
ples follow.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sopiens?

I believe that Homo sapiens is physically an evolutionary follower
of the two-legged ape. But here I must add a highly important but
usually ignored distinction: apes may have minds, to be sure of
simple types and not quite comparable with the brain and the
mind of man. But God endowed man with a soul, an abstract
entity capable of making contact with Him. Here I am arriving at
a point which recalls the view presented in my recent book, The
Miracle of Existence.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
These questions have already been answered.

Notes
1. The Nature of Physical Reality (Woodbridge, CT: Oxbow Press, 1977)
2. The Miracle of Existence (Woodbridge, CT: Oxbow Press, 1984)
3. Science and Religion (New York: Scribner and Sons, 1%2)
4. The importance of simplicity became clear to me after I published
one of my earliest books, entitled The Mathematics of Physics and Chem-
istry, of which my friend George Murphy, the chemist, was the co-
author. It was praised highly by reviewers for the simplicity of its
contents and sold exceptionally well.
 12
Science Will Never Give Us the Answers
to All Our Questions
Professor Sir Nevill Mott

• Born 30 September 1905

• M.S. in theoretical physics, Cambridge University, 1930; Nobel Prize
for Physics (shared with Philip W. Anderson and John H. Van Vleck),
1977; received the Nobel Prize with Anderson and Van Vleck "for
their fundamental theoretical investigations of the electronic structure
of magnetic and disordered systems"
• Cavendish Professor of Physics at Cambridge University until 1971
• Works include Atomic Structure and the Strength of Metals, 1956;
Electronic Processes in Non-Crystalline Materials {with E. A. Davis),
1971; Elementary Quantum Mechanics, 1972
• Professor Mott on:
the origin of the universe: " ... the concept of the Big Bang and
what followed it are strongly supported by observations".
the origin of life: " ... it arose through some chemical reaction in the
primeval mud".
the origin of Homo sopiens: · 'Whether a specific mutation separates
Homo sapiens from the other animals I do not know'·.
God:" . .. we can and must ask God which way we ought to go, what
we ought to do, how we ought to behave".

Many people of my generation came from families with some

religious beliefs, which they abandoned when they grew up. This
was so also of my parents, and I was brought up to respect Chris-
tian ethics but not to take part in any Christian worship. At about
the age of fifty, influenced by various people, I started attending
church, found that I could express in that way a vague belief in
God, and ever since have been asking myself how much of the
established doctrine of the Anglican church I could believe. I
wanted to understand the relation between scientific and re-

64
 Nevill Mott 65

ligious truths. I knew, of course, that all scientific theories are

provisional and may be changed, but that, on the whole, they are
accepted from Washington to Moscow because of their practical
success. Where religion has opposed the findings of science, it
has almost always had to retreat. I thought then, and still do, that
science can have a purifying effect on religion, freeing it from
beliefs from a pre-scientific age and helping us to a truer concep-
tion of God. At the same time, I am far from believing that science
will ever give us the answers to all our questions.
Religious doctrines, as stated in church services, seem to me
beliefs that have been held by our ancestors and are therefore
worthy of respect, and about which we should meditate and see
if they can help us now in our understanding of God. They are
certainly not accepted from Washington to Moscow. We can, I
believe, at least within the reformed churches, accept or reject
parts of them, or interpret them in terms of the thought of the
twentieth century. Even within the Catholic church, too, some
prominent theologians have felt free to interpret them in this way.
This article is about origins, and historically our views on the
origin of the universe have been profoundly influenced by re-
ligion. At present the concept of the Big Bang and what followed
it are strongly supported by observations, and I have no reason
to doubt current theories. To me the most fascinating part of
them is the Anthropic Principle, the undoubted fact that the
constants of nature, for instance the number of particles in the
universe or the ratio of the electron's mass to that of the proton,
have values just right to allow the primeval gas to condense into
nebulae and stars ijnd occasionally form planets on which we can
live. Were they only slightly different, this could not have hap-
pened and we could not exist. In the future, perhaps, a mathe-
matical theory will show that these constants could not be oth-
erwise than they are-in which case an anthropic mathematical
theory will be a very curious conclusion to our endeavors. Or
perhaps it was all planned by a high intelligence, a God, who did
it with us in mind. I do not know and do not expect to know,
neither do I very much care. If it was planned by God, he is so far
away from the ever-present God of worship and prayer that I
find it hard to imagine that they are the same being.
As regards the origin of life, I can only follow modem evolu-
tionary theory and believe that it arose through some chemical
reaction in the primeval mud. Whether a specific mutation sepa-
rates Homo sapiens from the other animals I do not know. It is
66 Astronomers, Mothemoticions, ond Physicists

certainly possible. If not-and if we hold to the doctrine of eternal

life in any literal sense-we have to face some harsh questions:
do our cats and dogs, and wild animals, have some form of eternal
life too?
Let me now face Professor Margenau's last, and to me the
most important, question: What is my concept of God? I need
hardly say that this is entirely personal; I most certainly do not
expect or wish to carry conviction with those who think other-
wise.
In my understanding of God I start with certain firm beliefs.
One is that the laws of nature are not broken. We do not, of
course, know all these laws yet, but I believe that such laws exist.
I do not, therefore, believe in the literal truth of some miracles
which are featured in the Christian Scriptures, such as the Virgin
Birth or water into wine. This is not consciously because I am a
scientist; if God is all-powerful, of course he could break his own
laws. My disbelief is because I am repelled by the idea of a God
who would perform miracles of that kind to mark a special occa-
sion in the history of his revelation of his nature to us. Miracles,
also, tempt us to ask, why does not God perform more of them?
Why did he not stop the Black Death or an earthquake in AI-
menia? God works, I believe, within natural laws, and, according
to natural laws, these things happen.
In considering God's power, we must not look for a ~
the Gaps, a god who is called in for those phenomena for which
there is yet no scientific explanation. But I believe that there is
one "gap" for which there will never be a scientific explanation,
and that is man's consciousness. No scientist in the future,
equipped with a super-computer of the twenty-first century or
beyond, will be able to set it to work and show that he is thinking
about it. This has been argued by my successor as the head of the
Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, Sir Brian Pippard, in an
essay entitled ''The Invincible Ignorance of Science" (Contempor-
ary Physics, vol. 29 [London: Taylor and Francis, 1988), p. 393).
Pippard, an agnostic about God, does not describe this as the
"gap" where God makes himself known. But I would deduce
from this hypothesis that the way God plays a part in our lives is
because countless men and women claim to be conscious of him,
when they seek him, and accept that he is the God of love. God
can speak to us and show us how we have to live.
God as we know him, it seems to me, cannot desire the earth-
quakes, famines, and plagues that haunt mankind. Or perhaps
 Nevill Moll 67

we should say that he has voluntarily relinquished his omnipo-

tence-a concept which may bring these statements into line
with our prayers in church to the Almighty and with belief in a
God who engineered the Big Bang. And I do not think that we can
consider this God with whom we live as omniscient, either. This
is basically because I believe in free will, as Dr. Johnson did when
he said, "Sir, we know the will is free and there's an end on it". So
it seems to me that what we do is not predetermined and that this
means that God cannot know the future. The lines from a Moslem
prayer (from Raman Baba, who lived in what is now Afghanistan
in the seventeenth century, quoted in The Oxford Book of Prayer,
Oxford University Press, 1985; p. 339):
All the pages not yet written He has read,
Perfect knowledge of all secrets has my Lord
are beautiful, but not, I believe, true. If we wish to believe in free
will and in God's omniscience, I believe we must think of God as
"outside time", which is a difficult concept for most of us.
Turning now to physics, I follow the Copenhagen Interpreta-
tion of quantum mechanics. I learned it from Niels Bohr, whose
pupil I was for a period, and I have used it in all my research over
sixty years. I believe therefore that chance is a real element in
nature. Thus, out of billions of atoms in a radioactive specimen,
we know that a given number, more or less, will break up today,
but we do not know which ones. The Uncertainty Principle tells
us that if we tried to find out which ones were, so to speak,
getting ready to break up, we would have to probe the nuclei,
and this might well spark off the disintegration itself. Chance,
then, is a real feature of our universe, though many would deny
this. Chance, I believe, is not just a cover-up for our ignorance. In
theological terms, I must maintain that God himself does not
know which atom will break up today and which next year. I do
not claim, however, any relationship between the Uncertainty
Principle and human free will. But the Uncertainty Principle does
teach me that nature is not deterministic in the Newtonian sense
and that there is nothing in physics against my belief in free will.
And so, turning to religious history again, it was not predicted
that Pontius Pilate would behave as he did. I conclude that the
great drama of the New Testament might not have happened.
Here then is a description of God. He is a being who does not
break natural laws or know the future, but who can help us to
choose the way we live, if we ask him, and so profoundly affect
61 Astronomers, Mothemolicions, and Physicists

what happens in his world. The miracles of human history are

those in which God has spoken to men. The supreme miracle for
Christians is the Resurrection. Something happened to those few
men who know Jesus, which led them to believe that Jesus yet
lived, with such intensity and conviction that this belief remains
the basis of the Christian Church two thousand years later. Was
it a "bodily" resurrection? I will quote Hans Kiing, the Catholic
theologian at the University ofTiibingen, whose teaching did not
always please the Vatican. He writes (in On Being a Christian [Lon-
don: Collins, 1974], p. 361), "Anyone who perceives the real point
of the resurrection message will regard some fiercely contested
[historical] questions as peripheral". Not, if I understand his
views, as simply a movement of molecules. I am impressed too by
the point of view of the present Archbishop of York (Dr. John
Habgood, Science and Religion, [London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1964]), that to understand the Bible we must try to enter into the
belief patterns of the period-a hard saying, perhaps, as it may
shut off the poorly educated from a full understanding of
Christianity.
I believe, then, that we can and must ask God which way we
ought to go, what we ought to do, how we ought to behave. And
in doing this, we must not be too impressed by the insights of the
end of the twentieth century in molecular biology and modern
astrophysics. It has been said that he who tries to marry his
religion to the beliefs of one period risks widowhood in the next.
We must respect the wisdom and insights of our ancestors. This
is why, for me, it is possible to worship in church and recite a
creed, much of which I do not believe.
At the same time, I realize that the answers God gives to
those who ask him are not always the same. In religion I am
proud to call myself a liberal, but I feel that in the last thirty years
liberalism has become a dirty word. And, alas, in history we see
that the answers given to those that asked him may shock us
now, whether we are liberals or not. Christians have asked, and
the answer has been that crusading armies should storm Jerusa-
lem and kill all Jews and Moslems there, and later that heresy is
so dangerous for our salvation that heretics must be burned. In
another great religion, the answer has been given quite recently
that an apostate must be killed. Can we not believe that our
understanding of God does greatly change with time and place?
Talking to a Jewish friend, I asked him how he reconciled his
conception of God with that described in the thirty-first chapter
 Nevill Moll 69

of the Book of Numbers, where Jehovah commands the Israelites

to kill all the men of the Midianites but to keep the girls for
themselves. "Ah", he said, "God has grown up since those days".
Perhaps-but not, I fear, everywhere. Nonetheless, what we hear
when we ask him is, I believe, the only way to meet this God who
lives amongst us. What we believe about him can affect our daily
life, our politics, our educational system, and how we think about
any differing role of women and of men in our society. But, the
question asked in this article is, can we relate this God to the
Creator of the universe?
Scientists, notably Guth and Vilenk in the U.S., Linde in the
U.S.S.R., and Hawking in England, are pushing the story of the
Creation back before the Big Bang, to a universe empty but full of
energy, subject to fluctuations, one of which triggered off the
1
explosion. And as for the Anthropic Principle, as I have said,
others like to speculate that there may have been-or are-many
other universes, and it was just chance that one of them had the
constants just right for us. l would rather believe that the laws of
nature will be found to be such that they could not be otherwise,
and that the properties that also allow us to exist follow from the
ultimate mathematical equations. When, or if, our understanding
gets to this point, as Stephen Hawking puts it, "physics will be
finished" -his kind of physics, anyhow.
But however we look at it, here is our universe and we ask:
Must it have a Creator and Intelligence behind it? This is a ques-
tion to which perhaps we shall never have an answer but never
stop asking. This all-powerful God-perhaps outside time, who
set the universe going, looked ahead to man, saw that the con-
stants of nature were right, sat through the millennia while evo-
lution and the struggle for existence produced man, and thought
about him from the beginning-is one which I find hard to recon-
cile with the God of Love, who, Christians believe, is among us
now. It is wise, I believe, not to worry too much about questions
that cannot be answered or seek to find in the Anthropic Princi-
ple evidence for the God who matters to us.
At the same time, I cannot forget the old Jewish story, of how
God talked to Abraham, and said, "But for me, you would not be
here". '1 know that, Lord", answered Abraham, "but were I not
here there would be no one to think about you". We shall go on
doing it.
 13
Religion and Science Both Proceed
from Acts of Faith
Professor Robert A. Naumann

• Born 7 June 1929

• Ph.D. in physical chemistry, Princeton University, 1953; received the
Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung Senior U.S. Scientist Award in 1983

• Currently Professor of Chemistry and Physics, Princeton University

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: radioactivity; inorganic

chemistry; nuclear physics; conducting research for the National
Science Foundation in the areas of electromagnetic isotope separa-
tion, radiochemical. separation procedures, the examination of
nuclear structure through radioactive and charged particle nuclear
spectroscopy, the implantation of radioactive isotopes into solids, and
the formation and properties of muonic atoms

• Professor Naumann on:

the origin of the universe:" . .. current questions now arising in cos-
mology, elementary particle physics, and microbiology have an
obvious metaphysical or religious content".
the origin of life: " ... given the right precursors and conditions,
living systems will arise spontaneously. Nevertheless, we will continue
lo be confronted by the deeper questions: What are the purposes and
consequences of living beings in the universe?"
the origin of Homo sapiens: "I am content with a terrestrial evolu-
tionary sequence beginning with amino acids and leading to Homo
sapiens".
God:' 'The existence of the universe requires me to conclude that God
exists" .
. . . .. . . .. .
70
 Robert A Naumann 71

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
I find religion and science present no conflict. Both proceed from
acts of faith. The religious follower holds that the universe
evolves according to God's plan. The scientists believes that a
few fundamental and potentially comprehensible principles can
explain the mechanism he observes in the universe. I firmly agree
that current questions now arising in cosmology, elementary
particle physics, and microbiology have an obvious metaphysi-
cal or religious content.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
We now appear to know a great deal about the mechanisms
operating in living plants and animals. It may well be possible
within the next decades to assemble, in the laboratory, a self-
replicating virus starting from inert simple organic chemicals. If
so, we should assume that, given the right precursors and condi-
tions, living systems will arise spontaneously. Nevertheless, we
will continue to be confronted by the deeper questions: What are
the purposes and consequences of living beings in the universe?

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

I am content with a terrestrial evolutionary sequence beginning
with amino acids and leading to Homo sapiens. It strikes me that
we humans display great hubris in constructing a life picture
with H. sapiens at the evolutionary pinnacle. The discovery of
other and possibly superior life-forms in the universe would
cause a profound and perhaps needed re-evaluation of our niche
and relative importance in the universe.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
By being open-minded, objective, and doing the best science of
which we are capable.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
72 Astronomers, Mathemoticians, ond Physicists

I hold that God is the totality of the universe; this includes all
scientific principles, all matter and energy, and all life-forms. The
existence of the universe requires me to conclude that God exists.
 14
Our Final Ineptitude at Producing a Rational
Explanation of the Universe
Professor Louis Neel

• Born 22 November 1904

• Ph.D. in physics, University of Strasbourg, 1932; Nobel Prize for Phys-

ics (shared with Hannes Alfven), 1970; received the Nobel Prize "for
fundamental work and discoveries concerning antiferromagnetism
and ferromagnetism, which have led to important applications in
solid-state physics": works include The Selected Works of Louis Neel
(with Nicholas Kurti), 1983

• Director of the Center for Nuclear Studies, Grenoble, since 1956

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
Religion and science are two very separate domains. Any
attempt to merge them can only distort them without any
advantage. The progress of science, no matter how marvelous it
appears to be, does not bring science closer to religion but it leads
to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at producing a
rational explanation of the universe.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
As a physicist, I consider physics to be an experimental science.
A hypothesis is of interest only if it is possible to verify its conse-
quences by discovering new phenomena or new directions. This
means that all hypotheses concerning the origin of the universe
do not belong to physics but to metaphysics or to philosophy
and that physicists as such are not qualified to deal with them.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

73
74 Astronomers, Molhemolicions, ond Physicists

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
Personally I am interested only in problems that I have some
hope to solve. Man is quite conceited to speculate on the origin
of life and on his own origin.
If everything is limited to the material environment, one can-
not conceive how the brain, a minute part of an immense uni-
verse in time and space, could understand it: one might as well
ask the piston of an automobile motor to retrace the history of the
automobile. If a God exists outside of our material universe, it is
just as ridiculous to hope to penetrate his purposes.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
To give my opinion on God's existence, it would be necessary to
define exactly the concept; unfortunately, for three thousand
years that concept has taken infinite forms.

Personal addenduma I advise scientists and philosophers to read or

read over again Ecclesiastes as well as St. Paul in his First Letter to the
Corinthians xiii: 1-13 with great humility.
 15
A Feeling of Great Surprise That There Is Anything
Professor Edward Nelson

• Born 4 May 1932

• Ph.D. in mathematics, University of Chicago, 1955

• Currently Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University

• Professor Nelson on:

the origin of the universe: "Until we have a sound and rigorously
established cosmology, it is premature to investigate the origin of the
universe".
the origin of life: "It seems plausible that natural selection played a
role even before the emergence of life".
the origin of Homo sapiens: "I subscribe to the view, not prevalent
today even among religious people, that something went basically
wrong with our origin (original sin)".
God: "I believe in, pray to, and worship God".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
Scientists choose the problems on which they work, and are
sustained by hopes of discovery, on grounds deeper than
rational considerations. For some scientists, such choices and
hopes are religious. But in the day-to-day work of doing science,
it is essential that the scientist simply ignore religious beliefs.
This is because science only succeeds within a limited, restricted
methodology. An analogy would be the work of an accountant
auditing the books of a charitable organization: nothing good
would come in being influenced by the worthy aims of the or-
ganization when doing the audit.
Although at times, especially in studies of origins, science
deals with penultimate questions, its methods are incompatible
with those of theology. Theology can ponder with benefit the
results of science, but not vice versa. In my view, dialogue

75
76 Astronomers, Malhematicians, and Physicists

between science and religion as subjects is misconceived,

although dialogue between scientists and theologians can per-
haps be fruitful.
This is a time when, especially in America, science is under
vigorous attack from creationists, radical animal rights activists,
and doctrinaire opponents of genetic engineering. We need the
help of reasonable religious people in combating these danger-
ous simplistic assaults, which are sometimes mounted in the
name of religion.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
I have no scientific expertise in questions of the origin of the
universe, but I am highly skeptical about contemporary cosmol-
ogy. Scientists are as prone to fads and herd behavior as the rest
of our species, and in my view the Big Bang theory has been too
widely accepted on the basis of insufficient evidence. I am per-
suaded of this partly by the work of Irving Segal (Mathematical
Cosmology and Extragalactic Astronomy, New York: Academic Press,
1976; and many articles). Until we have a sound and rigorously
established cosmology, it is premature to investigate the origin of
the universe,
On a metaphysical level, I believe that the origin of the uni-
verse is to be found in the free act of its Creator.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Again, I have no scientific expertise on the origin of life. I find
Freeman Dyson's book The Origins of Life, with emphasis on the
plural, highly intriguing, It seems plausible that natural selection
played a role even before the emergence of life. One problem that
perhaps mathematicians could fruitfully address is this: What
structure is necessary in a dynamical system for the emergence
of natural selection? Is it possible in a cellular automaton with
simple rules such as John Conway's Game of Life?
I do not think that Dyson was wrong (in Infinite in All Direc-
tions) in elevating maximal diversity to the status of a metaphys-
ical principle, I believe that this is such a deep part of the will of
the Creator that it is of great ontological and moral significance.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sopiens?

 Edward Nelson 77

I am utterly unqualified to express any scientific views on the

origin of Homo sapiens.
I subscribe to the view, not prevalent today even among
religious people, that something went basically wrong with our
origin (original sin). William Golding's novel The Inheritors por-
trays us as we might have been and as we are.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
Scientists should approach origin questions as they approach
any other questions, with skeptical audacity, seeking discoveries
with falsifiable content.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
One of my earliest memories is a feeling of great surprise that
there is anything. It still strikes me as amazing, and for me this is
the fundamental religious emotion. I believe in, pray to, and wor-
ship God.
 16
Creation Is Supported by All the Data So Far
Dr. Arno Penzias

• Born 26 April 1933

• Ph.D. in physics, Columbia University, 1962; Nobel Prize for Physics

(shared with Pyotr Kapitza and Robert W. Wilson), 1978; received the
Nobel Prize with Wilson "for their discovery of cosmic microwave
background radiation"

• Currently Vice-President for Research, AT&T Bell Laboratories

• Dr. Penzias: " ... astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe

which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance
needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and
one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan.
Thus, the observations of modern science seem to lead to the same
conclusions as centuries-old intuition".

Human wonder at the world around us predates recorded his-

tory. When the psalmist said, "What is man that thou art mindful
of him?", that was surely not the first time that someone looked
up at the heavens and wondered what this world was all about.
Archeological evidence-from the crescent moons scratched on
the walls of ancient caves to the giant blocks at Stonehenge-
testifies to our longstanding concern with cosmic questions.
While wonder necessarily began with individual awareness,
the growth of civilization has led to the integration of experience.
As our sophistication increases, we habitually categorize the sum
of experience, using names like "theology" and "astrophysics".
But categorization leads to separation. In particular, our under-
standing of the world around us has grown along two parallel
courses, based on largely separate portions of the entirety of
human experience.
One portion encompasses what I might call tangible experi-
ence-the kind of knowledge that goes with "one and one is
two", "water is wet", and "rocks are heavy". The other portion
deals with intangible things like love, faith, humanity, and the

78
 Arno Penzias 79

feeling of order and purpose in the world. While both kinds of

knowledge are valid, one or the other has enjoyed the greater
share of popular respect at different times in human history. Our
intangible knowledge and our quantitative knowledge seem to
conflict from time to time, and seem to force us to choose
between them. In no field is that conflict more apparent than in
cosmology, in thinking about the world around us, in thinking
about the universe.
In ancient times, theology outweighed the barely-formed
precursors of physical science. But physical knowledge soon
began to grow in prestige as well as size. By the end of the Middle
Ages, theology could no longer ignore science. The resulting
dichotomy between tangible and intangible knowledge per-
plexed many of our own great scholars-none greater than the
Rambam himself. When Rabbi Moses Ben-Maimon thought
about the universe (or, to be more precise, when he thought
about thinking about the universe), he advised his readers not to
be swayed by empirical data.
In short, in these questions, do not take notice of the utterances
of any person. I told you that the foundation of our faith is the
belief that God created the Universe from nothing; that time did
not exist previously, but was created; for it depends on the
motion of the sphere, and the sphere has been created.I
Maimonides's "dogmatic" position that the universe was
created out of nothing conflicted with "empirical" data-data
from none other than Aristotle himself-that matter was eternal.
How could the everyday person take sides in this dispute
between giants? The effort involved in trying to fit dogma and
fact into the same mind seems too difficult. We can picture Mai-
monides's reader-wanting to hold on to the teaching of the
faith, but as a rational person wanting to keep a grasp on every-
day facts-being pulled by two opposing "truths". One held that
the universe was created out of nothing, while the other pro-
claimed the evident eternity of matter. The "dogma" of creation
was thwarted by the "fact" of the eternal nature of matter.
Well, today's dogma holds that matter is eternal. The dogma
comes from the intuitive belief of people (including the majority
of physicists) who don't want to accept the observational evi-
dence that the universe was created-despite the fact that the
creation of the universe is supported by all the observable data
astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject
Astronomers, Mothemolicions, and Physicists

the data can arguably be described as having a "religious" belief

that matter must be eternal. These people regard themselves as
objective scientists. The term "Big Bang" was coined in a pejora-
tive spirit by one of these scientific opponents who hoped to
replace the evolutionary universe idea with a Steady State the-
ory-one which said that the universe has always looked exactly
as it looks now. More recently, this now-discredited attempt has
been replaced by an Oscillating Universe theory, one in which
the cosmos explodes and collapses throughout eternity.
If the universe hadn't always existed, science would be con-
fronted by the need for an explanation of its existence. Since
scientists prefer to operate in the belief that the universe must be
meaningless-that reality consists of nothing more than the sum
of the world's tangible constituents-they cannot confront the
idea of creation easily, or take it lightly. Well, I hope that we, as
modern people, might be able to leave dogma aside and be wil-
ling to look at facts, at least the facts as we understand them today.
Let us use our eyes and our intellect to see what the world is
really like. Let us look at the world-out at the heavens around
us-not through a telescope (because that would be a little diffi-
cult to do in the daytime) but perhaps through a library. I invite
you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century's worth
of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe
actually look like. Here are the galaxies, clouds of stars, each with
as many as a hundred billion stars clumped together in what
amount to mere specks of dust on a universal scale. When I try to
depict the universe for non-technical people, I often ask them to
think of a large room like this one, and to imagine all the little
invisible particles of dust floating in the air within it. If you could
image that each one of the billions of dust particles in this room
were itself a galaxy of a hundred billion suns, you would begin to
appreciate the vastness of just a small corner of the universe.
The pieces of the universe, the galaxies, are flying apart one
from the other. When we look out from our own galaxy, the Milky
Way, at distant objects in the sky-galaxies which are so far away
that their light takes tens of millions of years just to get here-we
find that they are all moving away from us. Furthermore, we find
that the further away any one is from our own, the faster it is
moving away from us. The relation between distance and speed
constitutes the basic observation about the nature of the world
we live in. The link between "further" and "faster" is just about
all we need to tell the "Big Bang" story.
 Arno Penzios 81

It is a hard concept to grasp, but I have sometimes been able

to explain it to fourth-graders. In such a school atmosphere, I
often begin by asking about teacher's pets. "Do your teachers
have favorites? Do they treat you all fairly? Suppose you came
late to a gym class and a foot race was underway, how would you
know whether or not the teacher had gotten the race off to a fair
start?" With luck, I get the children to answer, "The fastest child
should be out in front; the slowest child should be in the rear".
They understand that the faster a child runs, the further that
child should be from the starting point at any given moment.
And then I ask, 'What makes a race fair to all its contestants?"
What they tell me is, "All the children have to start from the same
place at the same time".
So the observation that the fastest galaxy is the furthest
away merely says that the race of the galaxies is a fair one. All the
galaxies began their flight one from another, "from the same
place at the same time". To build a quantitative picture we must
use the laws of physics. As we do our calculations, we can move
backwards in time to earlier and earlier epochs at which the
pieces were closer and closer to the start of the race. (Moving
away at sixty miles an hour, for example, a contestant was one
mile from that start after one minute, and just about one inch
after one millisecond.)
At the start, each of these pieces needed a staggeringly large
amount of energy just to escape from the gravitational pull of its
neighbors. Furthermore, for this escape to have been at all possi-
ble, the matter from which the pieces were made, as well as this
tremendous energy, seem to have appeared out of nothing in an
instant. All the energy (as well as any matter present at the event)
ought to have appeared out of nothing because, had all this mate-
rial sat there in a quiescent state for even the tiniest fraction of a
second, the pull of gravity of one region on another would have
been strong enough to force everything together into what is
called a black hole. We know that didn't happen; otherwise we
wouldn't be here to discuss the event.
Let me explain. Gravity moves with the speed of light. That
means that if the sun somehow got heavier just now, we
wouldn't know about it for a few minutes (the time that light and
gravity take to traverse the distance between the sun and the
earth). In the same way, when the universe was just one billionth
of a second old, each object could only exert a pull upon material
within one foot of its location (and feel its pull in return); light
82 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

travels just one foot in a billionth of a second. At one second after

the birth of the universe, each object was being tugged at by the
pull of material within a 186,000-mile radius, but by that time
their tremendous initial speeds had already moved the pieces far
enough apart to lower the density safely below the critical
amount needed to form a black hole.
In order to achieve consistency with our observations we
must, according to Einstein's General Relativity, assume not only
creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of
space and time as well. Moreover, this creation must be very
delicately balanced. The amount of energy given to the emerging
ma~must be enough to move it fast enough to escape the
bonds of gravity, but not so fast that the particles lose all contact
with each other. Enough of the initially-created matter must pull
together under gravity to form galaxies, stars, and planetary sys-
tems which allow for life. Thus the second "improbable" prop-
erty of the early universe, almost as improbable as creation out of
nothing, is an exquisitely delicate balance between matter and
energy. Third-and this one puzzles scientists at least as much as
the first two-somehow all these pieces, each without having
any proper contact with the others, without having any way of
communication, all must have appeared with the same balance
between matter and energy at the same instant.
Today, whenever we stand bareheaded under the open sky,
our scalps absorb a tiny portion of the heat left over from the Big
Bang. This is the "background radiation" that R.W. Wilson and I
discovered some years ago, radio waves which are now arriving
at the earth from a distance of some eighteen billion light years.
These radio photons also add a little bit to the "snow" on your
television set, as well as to the whooshing sound you hear
between stations on your FM receiver. These photons started
their flight toward us almost eighteen billion years ago. Until
they arrived here we had no communication with the part of the
universe they came from. (Yesterday's photons came from a
slightly closer region.) As time goes on, more of the pieces of the
universe gradually come into contact with one another. Now it
turns out that all regions of the universe we have seen so far
appear identical in form, and in their laws of nature, to the other
parts-even though they hadn't been in contact when their com-
position was established.
Some of you may have read about proposed modifications to
the Big Bang theory such as the "bubble theory". Most have to do
 Arno Penzios 83

with hypotheses for how this universal perfection could have

happened without violating our understanding of the laws of
physics. The bubble theory is a mathematical attempt at getting
around our third "improbable" observational fact. As of now, the
attempt seems to have been unsuccessful, but the importance of
the challenge suggests that scientists will continue to pursue
such lines of attack.
Before concluding, I can't resist bringing up the "missif!&
~ , , the difference between the amount of matter astronomers
find in the universe and the much larger amount needed to
reverse the flight of the galaxies (and ultimately pull them back
into a single condensed state). Naively, one might imagine hunt-
ing for matter as a kind of astronomical inventory, one in which
the total climbs as overlooked nooks and crannies are examined.
No way! Just as astronomers "weigh" the sun by measuring the
motion of the earth, we infer the mass of the universe from the
motion of the galaxies themselves. Those motions point to a uni-
verse which will fly apart indefinitely-not one which will some-
day collapse to a point. Thus observations also contradict the
notion that our Big Bang is just one of an infinite series of such
events.
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was
created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed
to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one
which has an underlying (one might say "supernatural") plan.
Thus, the observations of modem science seem to lead to the
same conclusions as centuries-old intuition. At the same time,
most of our modem scientific intuition seems to be more com-
fortable with the world as described by the science of yesterday.
Kind of interesting, isn't it?

Note
Quoted from Guide of the Perplexed of Maimonides, New York: Hebrew
Publishing Co., 1946, Part II, Ch. XXX. I am deeply indebted to Jacob
Dienstag for stimulating discussions and helpful material on this
subject.
 17
Science Asks What and How,
While Religion Asks Why
Professor John G. Phillips

• Born 9 January 1917

• Ph.D. in astronomy, University of Chicago, 1948

• Currently Professor of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: laboratory studies of

molecules of interest to astrophysics and the application of this infor-
mation to study of spectra of cooler stars; works include (with S. P.
Davis) The Red System of the CN Molecule, 1963

• Professor Phillips on:

the origin ofthe universe: " ... there is solid evidence that the uni-
verse is some fifteen billion years old".
the origin of life and of Homo sapiens: A result of "appropriate
conditions''.
God: " ... there seems to be some force influencing the evolution of
societies; to deny its existence is to deny any purpose to life".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
I see no conflict between science and religion; they are basically
addressing different questions. Science asks what and how,
while religion asks why.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
While details are still to be worked out, there is solid evidence
that the universe is some fifteen billions years old.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?

84
 John G. Phillips 85

There is no reason to believe that, given the appropriate condi-

tions (time, temperature, ingredients, and so forth), life would
not evolve anywhere in the universe.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

As far as human life is concerned, my answer would be the same
as for Question 3.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
See my answers to Questions 2 and 3 above.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
I have difficulty visualizing a disembodied individual "God" sit-
ting in some hypothetical "heaven" governing human affairs. Yet
there seems to be some force influencing the evolution of socie-
ties; to deny its existence is to deny any purpose to life.
 18
Temporal Origin and Ontological Origin
Professor John Polkinghorne

• Born 16 October 1930

• Ph.D. in physics, Cambridge University, 1955

• Currently Dean, Trinity Hall, and President, Queens' College, Cam-

bridge University

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: analytic side of elemen-

tary particle physics, including the analytic and high-energy proper-
ties of Feynman integrals and the foundations of S-Matrix theory;
works include numerous papers on theoretical elementary particle
physics in scientific journals; The Analytic 5-Motrix, 1966; The Particle
Ploy, 1979; Models of High Energy Processes, 1980; The Quantum
World, 1984
• Professor Polkinghorne on:
the origin ofthe universe:' 'Theology is not concerned with temporal
origin but ontological origin; creation is not an act of the remote past
but a continuing act of the divine will in every present moment".
the origin of life: A result of "the astonishing potentiality with which
matter-in-flexible-organization is endowed''.
the origin of Homosapiens: "I see humankind as qualitatively differ-
ent from the animals because of its self-consciousness and its ability to
know and worship its Creator".
God: "I believe that God exists ... "

These are matters about which one tries to write books (One
World; Science and Creation; Science and Pravidence) but here is a brief
response:

86
 John Polkinghorne 87

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
I think that science is autonomous within its self-limited domain
and that theology (the intellectual reflection upon religion) is the
great integrating discipline that sets the results of other human
enquiry within the most profound and comprehensive matrix of
understanding.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
I accept the story of the cosmologists, tracing back the history of
our universe to within a fraction of a second of the apparent "Big
Bang", with the necessary reserve about the more speculative
assertions of what happened at the very earliest epochs. It is even
conceivable that the whole show originated from the vacuum.
However, this would not be creation ex nihilo, nor would it
answer Leibniz's great metaphysical question, "Why is there
something rather than nothing?" I accept the theistic doctrine of
God the Creator, the One who holds the world in being. Theol-
ogy is not concerned with temporal origin but ontological origin;
creation is not an act of the remote past but a continuing act of
the divine will in every present moment.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
I believe that living creatures have evolved from inanimate mat-
ter through a continuous process of development, at present not
well understood scientifically. Metaphysically this speaks to me
of the astonishing potentiality with which matter-in-flexible-
organization is endowed. Indeed, I believe that our mental expe-
rience is a complementary pole to our material experience. In
other words I seek some non-reductionist form of monism (nei-
ther materialism nor idealism).

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

I think that humanity has arisen from lower forms of life without
the injection of an extra "spiritual" ingredient. Nevertheless,
because I believe that evolving complexity brings about genuine
novelty, I see humankind as qualitatively different from the
animals because of its self-consciousness and its ability to know
88 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

and worship its Creator. In that sense we are indeed spiritual

beings, but inescapably embodied (not apprentice angels).

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
I believe that, in principle, scientifically posable questions are
scientifically answerable. We should use our scientific knowl-
edge and abilities to learn all we can about the probable early
history of the universe and about how inanimate matter com-
plexified into living matter. However, other questions which we
surely must ask-such as, Why is there a world at all? Why is it
the way it is in its given law and circumstance? Is there a purpose
behind cosmic history?-are not scientific and require meta-
physics for their answer. I find the most satisfying and compre-
hensive answers to be provided by theism.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
I take God very seriously indeed. I am a Christian believer
(indeed, an ordained Anglican priest), and I believe that God
exists and has made himself known in human terms in Jesus
Christ.
 19
I Have Difficulty Accepting that Matter
Has Been in Existence Forever
Professor John A. Russell

• Born 23 March 1913

• Ph.D. in astronomy, University of California, 1943

• Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Astronomy, University of Southern

California

• Areas of specialization: meteor spectroscopy and statistics

• Professor Russell on:

the origin of the universe:'' Frankly, I have difficulty conceiving spon-
taneous creation in the distant past as a scientific process or accepting
that matter has been in existence forever".
the origin of life: Darwin's theories seem to be "supported by an
impressive amount of observational evidence".
the origin of Homo sopiens: " ... man has evolved as a conse-
quence of a fork developing in the evolutionary track''.
God:'"I believe that the universe was created and is sustained by
some power that we call God".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
There once was a poster on the wall near my office that showed
two urchins painting a very ramshackle playhouse. Random
swaths of blue paint crisscrossed what passed as walls. The title
under the poster read, ''The building reveals the builder". I
believe science is the source of much information about the uni-
verse and our place in it that reveals its creator. I was raised in a
very liberal Congregational church where I was encouraged to
explore and reconcile my science and my religion. I feel sorry for
those who seek security in religious dogma that becomes more
and more at odds with science. Science should not replace re-
ligion, but religion that flagrantly violates science is generally

89
90 Astronomers, Mothematicions, and Physicists

untenable for me. I acknowledge freely that religion goes beyond

science in that it grapples with timeless questions that science
cannot answer. Russell (alas! no relative of mine), Dugan, and
Stuart close the introduction of their classical, two-volume text
with these cogent lines:
Since astronomy is a physical science, it can give no direct
answer to problems in philosophy. Thus, while it can tell that a
star is larger than a man, it cannot decide which possesses the
greater worth.
Nevertheless, the realization which this science brings of the
tremendous extent of the material universe in space and time,
and of its essential unity, in that the same types of matter and
the same natural laws are found everywhere, is of great signifi-
cance. Though our planet thus appears as an insignificant speck,
it is yet likely to be habitable for millions of years to come. The
appreciation of these facts cannot fail to possess an important
influence in determining the attitude of the contemplative stu-
dent towards such problems of philosophy as man's obligations
to future generations, his place in the universe, and his relation
to the Power which is behind it.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Frankly, I have difficulty conceiving spontaneous creation in the
distant past as a scientific process or accepting that matter has
\ been in existence forever. As the universe shows convincing evi-
dence of evolution in the last fifteen billion years or so, I should
lean toward spontaneous creation of some sort at some time. As
to what preceded the Big Bang I could only speculate. I wonder
if the theoretical astrophysicists may not have carried their
mathematical extrapolations beyond a point verifiable by any
physical reality. Between a time of extraordinary concentration
of matter billions of years ago and today, physics and some form
of the Kant-Laplace concept answer most of the questions.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
From my first exposure to them, Darwin's theories seemed to me
to be supported by an impressive amount of observational evi-
dence. Reason supplies no support in my judgment for the fun-
damentalist objection to evolution as denigrating the power of
God. If I were God and had thought of evolution as a process for
 John A. Russell 91

developing life suitable to its environment, I should have consid-

ered evolution as a remarkable way to do it.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

I accept the concept that man has evolved as a consequence of a
fork developing in the evolutionary track, where one branch of
the fork led to land dwellers (humans) and the other branch led
to tree dwellers (apes).

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
Although we have made great strides with science in pushing
back the boundaries of the unknown, I am not convinced that
science will take us to the threshold of complete understanding.
Questions of origin and evolution imply that the universe is
changing. The question is, is it upward change? I can't say that
the universe is becoming better, except to the extent that it has
resulted in the origin of at least one body on which life capable of
intelligently studying time and space has developed. Is man
really better than his predecessors? I may be falling into the trap
of the seventeenth-century scientists who believed that all
planets were inhabited because they could think of no other
cause for their being created.
Today we ask, whither man? It is disquieting that we have
found no shred of evidence that our counterparts exist elsewhere
in the universe. Is it inevitable that the march of progress will be
stopped by over-population or the accidental or deliberate mis-
use of atomic energy, both of which man has the power to con-
trol? Our ancestors survived many forces of nature beyond their
power to control: fires, floods, earthquakes, plagues, and so on.
We can only hope that if our civilization loses the battle for sur-
vival, others on other planets will make wiser decisions.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
I believe that the universe was created and is sustained by some
power that we call God. Through the ages man has pictured his
gods as supermen. We assume that God thinks as we do and
evaluates as we do. Great religions tend to center about a man
whose sensitivity to the relation of man to God significantly
exceeds that of lesser mortals and who may act as a go-between.
92 Astronomers, Molhematicions, and Physicisls

For me, the true nature of God is beyond my comprehension.

I find some solace in the thought that he understands me better
than I understand him. In his Astronomy and the Cosmos, Sir James
Jeans poses questions including one that makes a huge leap
beyond the boundaries of our customary inquiries. I close this
comment on Question 6, as I customarily closed my elementary
classes, with this direct quotation:
The (astronomer) has finished his task when he has described to
the best of his ability the inevitable sequence of changes which
constitute the history of the material universe. But the picture
which he draws opens questions of the widest interest not only
to science, but also to humanity. What is the meaning, if any
there be which is intelligible to us, of vast accumulations of
matter which appear, on our present interpretations of space
and time, to have been created only in order that they may
destroy themselves? What is the relation of life to that universe,
of which, if we are right, it can occupy so small a comer? What,
if any, is our relation to the remote (galaxies), for surely there
must be some more direct contact than that light can travel
between them and us in a hundred million years? Do their colos-
sal uncomprehending masses come nearer to representing the
main ultimate reality of the universe, or do we? Are we merely
part of the same picture as they, or is it possible that we are part
of the artist? Are they perchance only a dream, while we are the
brain-cells in the mind of the dreamer? Or is our importance
measured solely by the fractions of space and time we occupy-
space infinitely less than a speck of dust in a vast city, and time
less than one tick of a clock which has endured for ages and will
tick on for ages yet to come?
 20
Science and Religion: Reflections on Transcendence
and Secularization
Professor Abdus Salam

• Born 29 January 1926

• Ph.D. in theoretical physics, Cambridge University, 1952

• Nobel Prize for Physics (shared with Sheldon L. Glashow and Steven
Weinberg), 1979; received the Nobel Prize with Glashow and Wein-
berg "for their contributions to the theory of the unified weak and
electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, including,
inter alia, the prediction of the weak neutral current"; works include
Symmetry Concepts in Modern Physics, 1966; Ideals and Realities:
Selected Essays, 1984
• Currently Director, International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste
(Italy), and President, Third World Academy of Sciences

• Professor Salam:
"Now this sense of wonder leads most scientists to a Superior Being-
der Alie, the Old One, as Einstein affectionately called the Deity-a
Superior Intelligence, the Lord of all Creation and Natural Law".

Science as Anti-Religion
It is generally stated that science is anti-religion and that science
and religion battle against each other for the minds of men. Is this
correct?'
Now if there is one hallmark of true science, if there is one
perception that scientific knowledge heightens, it is the spirit of
wonder; the deeper that one goes, the more profound one's
insight, the more is one's sense of wonder increased. This senti-
ment was expressed in eloquent verse by Faiz Ahmad Faiz:
Moved by the mystery it evokes, many a time have I dissected
the heart of the smallest particle. But this eye of wonder; its
wonder-sense is never assuaged!

93
94 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

In this context, Einstein, the most famous scientist of our

century, has written:

The most beautiful experience we can have is of the mysterious.

It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle
of ... true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer
wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are
dimmed. It was the experience of mystery-even if mixed with
fear-that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of
something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the pro-
foundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in
their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds-it is this
knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in
this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

Einstein was born into an Abrahamic faith; in his own view, he

was deeply religious.
Now this sense of wonder leads most scientists to a Superior
Being-der Alte, the Old One, as Einstein affectionately called
the Deity-a Superior Intelligence, the Lord of all Creation and
Natural Law. But then the differences start, and let us discuss
these.
The Abrahamic religions claim to provide a meaning to the
mystery oflife and death. These religions speak of a Lord who not
only created natural law and the universe in his glory, his own
holiness and his majesty; but also created us, the human beings
in his own image, endowing us not only with speech, but also
with spiritual life and spiritual longings. This is one aspect of
transcendence. The second aspect is of the Lord who answers
prayers when one turns to him in distress. The third is of the Lord
who, in the eyes of the mystic and the Sufi, personifies eternal
beauty and is to be adored for this. These transcendent aspects of
religion as a rule lead to a heightening of one's obligation towards
living beings. The fourth is of the Lord who endows some
humans-the prophets and his chosen saints-with divinely
inspired knowledge through revelation.
Regarding what may be called (in the present context) the
"societal", "secularist" thinking, Abrahamic religions speak of
the Lord who is also the guardian of the moral law, the precept
which states that "Like one does, one shall be done by"; the Lord
who gives a meaning to the history of mankind-the rise and fall
of nations for disobedience to his commandments; the Lord who
specifies what should be human belief as well as ideal human
 Abdus Salam 95

conduct of affairs2; and finally, the Lord who rewards one's good
deeds and punishes wrongdoing (like a father), in this world or a
life hereafter.
While many scientists in varying degrees do subscribe to the
first three aspects of transcendentalism, not many subscribe to
the "societal" aspects of religiosity.3 Scientists have their own
dilemmas in this respect.

The Three Viewpoints of Science

Let us start with natural law, which governs the universe. There
are scientists who would take issue with Einstein's view that
there is a sublime beauty about the laws of nature and that the
deepest (religious) feelings of man spring from the sense of won-
der evoked by this beauty. These scientists would instead like to
deduce the laws of nature from a self-consistency and "natural-
ness" principle, which made the universe come into being spon-
taneously. This should be something like the doctrine of spon-
taneous creation of life and its Darwinian evolution, only now
carried to the realm of all laws of nature and the whole universe.
If successful, this, in their view, would lead to an irrelevance of a
deity. 4 Man's spiritual dimension, so called, would be nothing
but a particular manifestation of physiological processes occur-
ring inside the human brain (not fully understood at present),
but their hope would be that a molecular basis would one day be
discovered for this.5
Contrasting with this is the view of the anthropic scientist
who believes that the universe was created purposefully with
such attributes and in such a manner that sentient beings could
arise. These then are t~ three viewpoints-first, the (religious
and transcendental) attitude of an Einstein; second, the an-
thropic view (which in a way supports the first); and third, the
viewpoint of the self-consistent scientist in whose scheme of
things the concept of a Lord is simply irrelevant.
Regarding what 1 have called the secularist sentiments in
general, Einstein has this to say: "I am satisfied with the mystery
of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the
marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the
devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of
the Reason that manifests itself in nature. ... (But) I cannot con-
ceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a
will of the kind that we experience in ourselves.... The exis-
96 Aslronomers, Molhemolicians, and Physicisls

tence and validity of human rights are not written in the stars".
Instead his belief was that "the ideals concerning the conduct of
men toward each other and the desirable structure of the com-
munity have been conceived and taught by enlightened individ-
uals in the course of history".
Apart from the subjective character of the opinion, note Ein-
stein's silence about the spiritual dimension of religion.

Modern Science and Faith

In the formation of such attitudes toward religion, could it be that
the medieval Church was partly responsible through its opposi-
tion to science? Could it be that these attitudes are a legacy of the
battles of yesterday when the so-called "rational philosophers",
with their irrational and dogmatic faith in the cosmological doc-
trines they had inherited from Aristotle, found difficulties in rec-
onciling these with their faith?
One must remind oneself that the battle of faith and science
was fiercely waged among the schoolmen of the Middle Ages.
The problems which concerned the schoolmen were mainly
problems of cosmology: "Is the world located in an immobile
place? Does anything lie beyond it? Does God move the primum
mobile directly and actively as an efficient cause or only as a final
or ultimate cause? Are all the heavens moved by one mover or
several? Do celestial movers experience exhaustion or fatigue?
What is the nature of celestial matter? Is it like terrestrial matter
in possessing inherent qualities such as being hot, cold, moist,
and dry?" When Galileo tried, first, to classify those among the
problems which legitimately belonged to the domain of physics,
and then to find answers, only to them, through physical exper-
imentation, he was persecuted. Restitution for this is, however,
being made now, three hundred and fifty years later.
At a special ceremony in the Vatican on 9 May 1983, His
Holiness the Pope declared: ''The Church's experience, during
the Galileo affair and after it, has led to a more mature attitude .
. . . The Church herself learns by experience and reflection and
she now understands better the meaning that must be given to
freedom of research ... one of the most noble attributes of man .
. . . It is through research that man attains to Truth.... This is
why the Church is convinced that there can be no real contradic-
tion between science and faith .... (However,) it is only through
humble and assiduous study that (the Church) learns to disso-
 Abdus Salam 97

ciate the essential of the faith from the scientific systems of a

given age, especially when a culturally influenced reading of the
Bible seemed to be linked to an obligatory cosmogony".

The Limitations of Science

In the remarks I have quoted, His Holiness the Pope stressed the
maturity which the Church had reached in dealing with science;
he could equally have emphasized the converse-the recogni-
tion by scientists, from Galileo's times onwards, of the limitations
of their disciplines-the recognition that there are questions
which are beyond the ken of present (or even future) science and
that "science has achieved its success by restricting itself to a
certain type of inquiry".
We may speculate about some of them, but there may be no
way to verify empirically our metaphysical speculations. And it
is this empirical verification that is the essence of modern
science. We are humbler today than, for example, lbn Rushd
(Averroes) was. lbn Rushd was a physician of great originality
with major contributions to the study of fevers and of the retina;
this is one of his claims to scientific immortality. However, in a
different scientific discipline-cosmology-he accepted the
speculations of Aristotle, without recognizing that these were
speculations and that the future might prove Aristotle wrong.
The scientist of today knows when and where he is speculating;
he would claim no finality even for the associated modes of
thought. And about accepted facts, we recognize that newer facts
may be discovered which, without falsifying the earlier discover-
ies, may lead to generalizations; in turn, necessitating revolution-
ary changes in our "concepts" and our "worldview". In physics,
this happened twice in the beginning of this century, first with
the discovery of relativity of time and space, and second with
quantum theory. It could happen again, with our present con-
structs appearing as limiting cases of the newer concepts-still
more comprehensive, still more embracing.
Permit me to elaborate on this.
I have mentioned the revolution in the physicists' concepts
of the relativity of time. It appears incredible that the length of a
time interval depends on one's speed-that the faster we move
the longer we appear to live to someone who is not moving with
us. And this is not a figment of one's fancy. Come to the particle
physics laboratories of CERN at Geneva which produce short-
Aslronomers, Molhemoticions, ond Physicists

lived particles like muons, and make a record of the intervals of

time which elapse before muons of different speeds decay into
electrons and neutrinos. The faster muons take longer to die, the
slower ones die and decay early, precisely in accord with the
quantitative law of relativity of time first enunciated by Einstein
in 1905.
Einstein's ideas on time and space brought about a revolu-
tion in the physicist's thinking. We had to abandon our earlier
modes of thought in physics. In this context, it always surprises
me that the professional philosopher and the mystic-who up to
the nineteenth century used to consider space and time as their
special preserve-have somehow failed to erect any philosophi-
cal or mystical systems based on Einstein's notions!
The second and potentially the more explosive revolution in
thought came in 1926 with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
This principle concerns the existence of a conceptual limitation
on our knowledge. It affirms, for example, that no physical mea-
surements can tell you simultaneously that there is an electron
on the table-here-and also that it is lying still. Experiments can
be made to discover precisely where the electron is; these same
experiments will then destroy any possibility of finding at the
same time whether the electron is moving and if so at what
speed. There is an inherent limitation on our knowledge, which
appears to have been "decreed in the nature of things". 6 I
shudder to think what might have happened to Heisenberg if he
was born in the Middle Ages-just what theological battles
might have raged on whether there was a like limitation on the
knowledge possessed by God.
As it was, battles were fought, but within the twentieth-
century physics community. Heisenberg's revolutionary think-
ing, supported by all known experiments, has not been accepted
by all physicists. The most illustrious physicist of all times, Ein-
stein, spent the best part of his life trying to find flaws in Heisen-
berg's arguments. He could not gainsay the experimental evi-
dence, but he hoped that such evidence might perhaps be ex-
plained within a different "classical" theoretical framework. Such
framework has not been found so far. Will it ever be discovered?

Faith and Science

But is the science of today really on a collision course with met-
aphysical thinking? The problem, if any, is not peculiar to the
 Abdus Salam 99

faith of Islam-the problem is one of science and faith in general,

at least so far as the Abrahamic religions are concerned. Can
science and faith at the least live together in "~annor.!_i..Q_us com-
e!_ementarity"? Let us consider some relevant examples of mod-
ern scientific thinking.
My first example concerns the "metaphysical" doctrine of
creation from nothing. Today, a growing number of cosmologists
believe that the most likely value for the density of matter and
energy in the universe is such that the mass of the universe adds
up to zero, precisely. The mass of the universe is defined as the
sum of the masses of matter-the electrons, the protons, and the
neutrinos, which constitute the universe as we believe we know
it-plus their mutual gravitational energies (converted into
mass; the gravitational energy of an attractive force is negative in
sign). If the mass of the universe is indeed zero-and this is an
empirically determinable quantity-then the universe shares
with the vacuum state the property of masslessness. A bold
extrapolation made around 1980 then treats the universe as a
quantum fluctuation of the vacuum-of the state of nothingness.
Attractive idea, but at the present time, measurements do not
appear to sustain it. This has led to an ongoing search for a new
type of matter-the so-called "dark matter"-which is not lumi-
nous to us but would show itself to us only through its gravity.
We shall soon know empirically whether such matter exists
or not. If it does not, we shall discard the whole notion of the
universe arising as a quantum fluctuation. This may be a pity, but
this points to a crucial difference between physics and meta-
physics-experimental verification is the final arbiter of even the
most seductive ideas in physics.

Anthropic Universe
My second example is the principle of the anthropic universe-
the assertion by some cosmologists that one way to understand
the processes of cosmology, geology, biochemistry, and biology
is to assume that our universe was conceived in a potential con-
dition and with physical laws which possess all the necessary
ingredients for the emergence of life and intelligent beings. "Bas-
ically this potentiality relies on a complex relationship between
the expansion and the cooling of the Universe after the Big Bang,
on the behaviour of the free energy of matter, and on the inter-
vention of chance at various (biological) levels", as well as on a
Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

number of "coincidences" which, for example, have permitted

the universe to survive the necessary few billion years.
Stephen Hawking, the successor of Newton in the Lucasian
Chair at Cambridge, in his recent book,A Brief History of Time: From
the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam Press, 1988), has
stated the anthropic principle most succinctly:
There are two versions of the anthropic principle, the weak and
the strong. The ~ak anthropic principle states that in a uni-
verse that is large or infinite in space and/or time, the conditions
necessary for the development of intelligent life will be met only
in regions that are limited in space and time. The intelligent
beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they
observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions
that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person
living in a wealthy neighbourhood not seeing any poverty.
One example of the use of the weak anthropic principle is to
"explain" why the big bang occurred about ten thousand mil-
1 lion years ago-it takes about that long for intelligent beings to

, evolve.... An early generation of stars first had to form. These

stars converted some of the original hydrogen and helium into
elements like carbon and oxygen, out of which we are made. The
stars then exploded as supernovas, and their debris went to
form other stars and planets, among them those of our solar
system, which is about five thousand million years old. The first
one or two thousand million years of the earth's existence were
too hot for the development of anything complicated. The
remaining three thousand million years or so have been taken
up by the slow process of biological evolution, which has led
from the simplest organisms to beings who are capable of meas-
uring time back to the big bang.
Few people would quarrel with the validity or utility of the
weak anthropic principle. Some, however, go much further and
propose a strong versio__.!! of the principle. According to this the-
ory, there are either many different universes or many different
regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configura-
tion and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of
these universes the conditions would not be right for the devel-
opment of complicated organisms; only in the few universes
that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the
question: ''Why is the universe the way we see it?" The answer
1 is then simple: if it had been different, we would not be here!
The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain
many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge
 Abdus Salam 101

of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the
electron. We cannot, at the moment at least, predict the values of
these numbers from theory-we have to find them by observa-
tion. It may be that one day we shall discover a complete unified
theory that predicts them all, but it is also possible that some or
all of them vary from universe to universe or within a single
universe. The remarkable fact is that the values of these
numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possi-
ble the development of life. For example if the electric charge of
the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would
have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they
would not have exploded. Of course, there might be other forms
of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science
fiction, that did not require the light of a star like the sun or the
heavier chemical elements that are made in stars and are flung
back into space when the stars explode. Nevertheless, it seems
clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the
numbers that would allow the development of any form of intel-
ligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to unive£ses that,
although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one
able to wonder at that beauty. One can take this either as evi-
dence of a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws
of science or as support for the strong anthropic principle.

Another example of the anthropic principle at work is pro-

vided by the recently-discovered "electroweak" force. It is inter-
esting to ask why nature has decided to unify the electromag-
netic and weak nuclear forces into one electroweak force. (The
electroweak together with the strong nuclear and the gravita-
tional forces constitute the three fundamental forces that we
know about in nature.) One recent answer to this question seems
to be that this unification provides one way to understand why
in the biological regime one finds amino acids which are only left-
handed and sugars which are only right-handed. (Left- and
right-handedness refers to the polarization of light after its scat-
tering from the relevant molecules.) In the laboratory, both types
of molecules, left-handed as well as right-handed, are produced
in equal numbers. Apparently over biological time, one type of
handed molecule decayed into the other type.
According to some scientists, the handedness of naturally
occurring molecules is predicated by the fact that electromagnet-
ism (the force of chemistry) is unified with the weak nuclear
force-a force which is well-known to be handed (for example,
102 Astronomers, Mothemoticions, ond Physicists

the weak nuclear force exists only between left-handed neutrons

and left-handed electrons). This fact, plus the long biological time
available for life to emerge, apparently was responsible for the
observed handedness of biological molecules in neutrons.
But where does the anthropic principle come into this? One
indication of this could be as follows: Take penicillin as an exam-
ple. Bacteria, exceptionally, utilize right-handed 0-amino acids
in the construction of their cell walls. Penicillin itself contains a
group of right-handed amino acids and interferes with the syn-
theses of the bacterial cell walls, a process which is unique to
bacteria and which does not occur in the mammalian host. The
penicillin miracle would thus be impossible except for the unifi-
cation of electromagnetism and weak forces. (Why one would
have to wait for ten billion years before sentient beings came into
existence to marvel, is of course not explained by the anthropic
principle.)

The Self-Consistency Principle

3.. Finally, there is the third category of scientists, those who use
"self-consistency" and "naturalness" to explain the architecture
of the universe. To illustrate self-consistency as applied in phys-
ics, I shall take a recent example.
As an extension of the recent excitement in physics-that is,
of our success with the electroweak force, our success in unifying
and establishing the identity of two of the fundamental forces of
nature, the electric force and the weak nuclear forces-some of us
are now seriously considering the possibility that space-time
may have ten dimensions. Within this context we hope to unify
the electroweak force with the remaining two basic forces, the
force of gravity and the strong nuclear force. This is being done
nowadays (1988) as part of "supersymmetric string theories" in
ten dimensions. The attempt, if successful, will present us with a
unified "Theory of Everything".
Of the ten dimensions, four are the familiar dimensions of
space and time. The other six dimensions are supposed to corre-
spond to a hidden internal manifold-hidden because these six
dimensions are assumed to have curled in upon themselves to
fantastically tiny dimensions of the order of 10-33 ems. We live in
a six-dimensional manifold in the ten-dimensional space-time:
Our major source of sensory apprehension of these extra dimen-
sions is the existence of familiar electric charges-electric and
 Abdus Salam 1 03

nuclear, which in their turn produce the familiar electric and the
nuclear forces.
Exciting idea, which may or may not work out quantitatively.
But one question already arises: why the difference between the
four familiar space-time dimensions and the six internal ones?
So far our major "success" has been in the understanding of
why ten dimensions in the first place (and not a wholesome
number of dimensions like thirteen or nineteen). This apparently
has to do with the "quantum anomalies" which plague the the-
ory (and produce unwanted infinities) in any but ten dimen-
sions. The next question which will arise is this: Were all the ten
dimensions on par with each other at the beginning of time? Why
have the six curled in upon themselves, while the other four have
not?
The unification implied by the existence of these extra
dimensions curling in upon themselves is one of the mysteries of
our subject. At present, we would like to make this plausible by
postulating a "self-consistency and naturalness" principle. (This
has not yet been accomplished.) But even if we are successful,
there will be a price to pay; there will arise subtle physical conse-
quences of such self-consistency-for example, possibly rem-
nants, just like the three-degrees Kelvin radiation which we
believe was a remnant of the recombination era following on the
Big Bang. We shall search for such remnants. If we do not find
them, we shall abandon the idea.
Creation from nothing, extra and hidden dimensions-
strange topics for late twentieth-century physics, which appear
no different from the metaphysical preoccupations of earlier
times; however, they are all driven by a self-consistency princi-
ple. So far as physics is concerned, mark however the insistence
on empirical verification at each stage.

Notes
1. One must recognize at the outset that religion is one of the strongest
"urges of mankmd", which can make men and women sacrifice their
all, including their lives, for its sake.
2. A Jew like Einstein was Jewish because he subscribed to the ostensi-
bly "cultural aspects" of the Jewish faith, rather than any "fundamen-
talist" belief in the teachings regarding "ideal human conduct" in the
Old Testament. Freud expressed himsell, in a similar vein, in his pref-
ace to the Hebrew translation of Totem and Taboo. Referring to the
104 Aslronomers, Malhemalicians, and Physicisls

emotional position of an author (himself) who is ignorant of the lan-

guage of holy writ and estranged from the religion of his fathers, he
says that if the question were put to him, "Since you have abandoned
all these common characteristics ... what is there left to you that is
Jewish?" he would reply, "A very great deal, and probably its very
essence." He said he "could not now express that essence clearly in
words which someday, no doubt, would become accessible to the
scientific mind".
3. The specification of "ideal belief and conduct" unfortunately has
almost always led to intolerance, excommunication, fanaticism, and
repression, particularly of minorities. There is divisiveness in the very
concept of the chosen people. In its worst manifestations this divisiveness
may sanction murder for religious disagreements, often making a
mockery of a religion's own tolerant teachings. In this respect, the late
Professor Sir Peter Medawar, Nobel Laureate in Biology and Medi-
cine, in his book The Limits of Science (Oxford University Press, 1980)
had this to say: "Religious belief gives a spurious spiritual dimension
to tribal enmities .... The only certain way to cause a religious belief
to be held by everyone is to liquidate nonbelievers .... The price in
blood and tears that mankind generally has had to pay for the comfort
and spiritual refreshment that religion has brought to a few has been
too great to justify our entrusting moral accountancy to religious
belief. By 'moral accountancy' I mean the judgment that such-and-
such an action is right or wrong, or such a man good and such another
evil."
4. I find the creationist creed especially insulting in that while we
ascribe subtlety to ourselves in devising these self-consistency
modalities, the only subtlety we are willing to ascribe to the Lord is
that of a potter's art-kneading clay and fashioning it into man.
5. Since the twentieth century has been called "the century of science",
I wish I could somehow convey the depth of the miracle of modem
science, both basic and applied. The twentieth century has been a
century of great syntheses in science-the syntheses represented by
quantum theory, relativity, and unification theories in physics, by the
Big Bang idea in cosmology, by the genetic code in biology, and by
ideas of plate tectonics in geology; likewise in technology, the con-
quest of space and the harnessing of atomic power. Just as in the
sixteenth century when European man discovered new continents
and occupied them, the frontiers of science are being conquered one
after another. I have always felt passionately that our men and
women in Arab-Islamic lands should also be in the vanguard of mak-
ing these conquests today, as they were before the year 1500.
6. One of the most difficult questions which the self-consistent scientist
has to answer is: Why this decree?
 21
One Must Ask Why and Not Just How
Professor Arthur L Schawlow

• Born 5 May 1921

• Ph.D. in physics, University of Toronto, 1949; Nobel Prize for Physics

(shored with Nicoloas Bloembergen and Kai Siegbahn), 1981;
received the Nobel Prize with Bloembergen "for their contribution lo
the development of laser spectroscopy''

• Currently J.G. Jackson-CJ. Wood Professor of Physics at Stanford

University

• Professor Schowlow on:

the origin of the universe: " ... the ultimate origin of the universe
may be not only unknown but unknowable .... there is no real way to
find out what come before the Big Bang".
the origin of life: Even if the origin of life con eventually be broken
down "to a series of chemical steps, subject to known physical laws, it
will still be marvelous that those powerful laws have such enormous
potential''.
the origin of Homo sopiens: '· ... there is excellent evidence that
evolution did occur ... But whatever is found con be understood as
God's way of producing humans".
God:'' It seems lo me that when confronted with the marvels of life and
the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible
answers ore religious .... I find a need for God in the universe and in
my own life".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
Science cannot either prove or disprove religion. Religion is
founded on faith. It seems to me that when confronted with the
marvels of life and the universe, one must ask ~ and not just
how. The only possible answers are religious. For me that means
rrc;testant Christianity, to which I was introduced as a child and
which has withstood the tests of a lifetime.

105
106 Astronomers, Mothemoticions, and Physicists

But the context of religion is a great background for doing

science. In the words of Psalm 19, ''The heavens declare the glory
of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork". Thus scien-
tific research is a worshipful act, in that it reveals more of the
wonders of God's creation.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Current research in astrophysics seems to indicate that the ulti-
mate origin of the universe may be not only unknown but
unknowable. That is, if we assume the Big Bang which present
evidence strongly supports, there is no real way to find out what
came before the Big Bang. It is surely right to pursue as far as
possible the scientific understanding of the origins of the uni-
verse, but it is probably wrong to think that we have final
answers and that there are no further surprises to come. From a
religious point of view, we assume that God did it and hope to
find out something about how he did it.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
The origin of life is also a fit subject for scientific enquiry. Even if
it turns out that we can eventually break it down to a series of
chemical steps, subject to known physical laws, it will still be
marvelous that those powerful laws have such enormous
potential.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

My answer to this question is essentially the same as to the
preceding one. Although my biological knowledge is not very
deep, it seems that there is excellent evidence that evolution did
occur and is still occuring. Scientists in that field should discover
all they can about the process. But whatever is found can be
understood as God's way of producing humans.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
Origin questions should be pursued as vigorously as the scien-
tists' abilities and interests can take them. But the answers will
never be final, and deeper questions will eventually have to be
referred to religion.
 Arlhur L. Schawlaw 107

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
As pointed out above, I find a need for .God in the universe and
in my own life. Some of the concepts of modern science provide
useful metaphors for thinking about God. For instance, some
scientists think of God as a sort of guiding principle, remote from
the concerns of individuals. Yet they can freely use a time sharing
computer, or the telephone switching network, which give
essentially simultaneous attention to many individuals.
The ideas of complementarity also help. It is not surprising
that different religious individuals have such different views of
God, for they have varying backgrounds and knowledge. We
know in science that we can only describe or explain things in
terms of other things. We also know that some things cannot be
described completely, exhibiting different aspects under differ-
ing conditions. Thus it is not surprising that philosophers and
peasants have different concepts of God. We are fortunate to
have the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which tells us
so much about God in widely accessible human terms, even
though it also leaves us some things that are hard to understand.
 22
The Origin of the Universe Does Not Seem to Me
to Be a Scientific Question
Professor Emilio Segre

• Born l February 1905

• Ph.D. in physics, University of Rome, 1928; Nobel Prize for Physics

(shared with Owen Chamberlain), 1959; received the Nobel Prize
with Chamberlain "far their discovery of the antiproton"

• Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, until his

retirement in 1972; also Professor Emeritus at the University of Rome

• Works include Nuclei and Particles: An Introduction to Nuclear and

Subnuclear Physics, 1964; From X-Rays to Quarks: Modern Physicists
and Their Discoveries, 1980
• Professor Segre on:
the origin of the universe: "The origin of the universe, at present,
does not seem to me to be a scientific question. Scientific theories are
usually validated by experiment, consistency tests, and predictive
power, all of which are hardly applicable to the origin of the
universe".
the origin of life: '' As of now I do not see the need to go beyond
physics and chemistry".
the origin of Homo sapiens: '' ... Homo sapiens evolved from
other primates, but I doubt that we know the details of this evolution
and what drove it".
God: Agrees with a statement (quoted here) from Einstein.
..........
1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and
science?
I would keep the two separate. There are examples of great
scientists that go from very religious (for instance, Faraday or
Cauchy) to agnostics, to atheists. This shows that scientific abil-
ity is uncorrelated with religious opinion.

108
 Emilio Segre 109

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
I have no opinions on the origins of the universe. I have some
knowledge of present cosmology, Big Bang, and so forth. I know
that such theories are subject to change with time, although each
one leaves a residue which is incorporated in the next one. The
origin of the universe, at present, does not seem to me to be a
scientific question. Scientific theories are usually validated by
experiment, consistency tests, and predictive power, all of which
are hardly applicable to the origin of the universe. On a meta-
physical level each individual may have his own opinions; I do
not know how to prove or disprove them.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
I suspect that one day or another it will be possible to synthesize
a "living" thing, although it may take a long time. As of now I do
not see the need to go beyond physics and chemistry. I feel the
burden is on the other side.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

I believe Homo sapiens evolved from other primates, but I doubt
that we know the details of this evolution and what drove it.
Natural selection is a component of evolution, but it may not be
the only one.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
Scientists and science should consider the origin questions as
subject to the same methodology they use for other problems.
They should recognize, however, that they may not reach a
"final" answer, whatever this means. Clearly they know a lot
more now than they did a few hundred years ago. Keep the good
work going. It may be objected that what we know is infinitesi-
mal compared to what we do not know. This may be true, but I
would not be bothered too much by it.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
11 0 Aslronomers, Malhemalicians, and Physicisls

This is a difficult and long question and it starts with a definition

of God. I have read several of Einstein's writings on the subject
and I agree, roughly speaking, with what he says.
The first problem is that the word "God" has many mean-
ings, one for each religion at least. The concept is fraught with
ambiguities and anthropomorphic ideas, with moral implica-
tions, with the concepts of "soul", immortality, and so forth.
Einstein has written (Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann,
Albert Einstein, The Human Side, Princeton University Press, 1979,
p. 142):
I cannot imagine a personal God who influences immediately
the actions of individual creatures or makes direct judgement of
them. I cannot do it despite the fact the mechanistic causality of
modem science is to a certain extent under doubt. My religious
attitude involves a modest admiration of the infinitely exceed-
ing spirit which reveals itself in the limited facts which we, with
our limited and uncertain spirit, are able to recognize concern-
ing reality. Morality is a most important feature for us, not for
God. (Editor's translation-H. M.)

I agree with the entire statement. In addition religion has

entirely different connotations for reason and for the emotions.
The second aspect is quite important but irrational, as love.
 23
The Universe Is Ultimately to Be Explained in Terms
of a Metacosmic Reality
Professor Wolfgang Smith

• Born 18 February 1930

• Ph.D. in mathematics, Columbia University, 1957

• Currently Professor of Mathematics, Oregon Stale University; faculty

positions al Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University
of California, Los Angeles

• Professor Smith's research on the aerodynamics of diffusion fields pro-

vided the theoretical key to the solution of the re-entry problem for
space flight.

• Professor Smith on:

the origin of the universe: "I accept the so-called Big Bang
hypothesis ... ''
the origin of life: '' ... life and the natural species originate, symbol-
ically speaking, 'at the Center' and evolve towards the periphery".
the origin of Homo sapiens: '' ... man is special, not in the mode of
his origination, but quite simply in what he is, in the archetype, namely,
which he manifests".
God:" . .. nothing is more evident, more certain, than the existence or
reality of God".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
"Science", Einstein once said, "deals with what is; religion with
what ought to be" -but this is not at all our view. Religion, of
course, exists and functions on many levels, as it ought to and
must; and in its more familiar manifestations, at any rate, it is in
fact largely concerned in one way or another with "what ought to
be". But if we consider the religious phenomenon in its highest
forms-as indeed we should if we would understand its
essence-the picture changes. For then we find that religion

111
112 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicists

deals not just with ethical norms and human consolations, but
with reality, precisely, and that on a level which is normally
inaccessible, to say the least. This, in any case, is the perennial
claim; and I, for my part, can see no sound reason to doubt its
validity.
It would seem, therefore, that Einstein's dictum needs ot be
revised: it may indeed be religion, taken at its summit, that actu-
ally "deals with what is", in contrast to science, which by its
nature is constrained to deal with "what appears to be" (under
conditions stipulated by its own modus operandi).
Strictly speaking, there can be no "dialogue" between
science and religion. It is doubtful that the truths of religion can
be adequately explained on the level of scientific discourse, any
more than a three-dimensional body can be made to fit into a
plane; and the attempt is prone to "flatten" and thus destroy the
very thing one pretends to render intelligible. This is typically
what takes place, one fears, when so-called religious authorities
begin to dialogue. Nothing is in fact more fatal to religion than
the pretension to "demythologize" its content.
What the scientist (like everyone else) needs in the face of the
religious phenomenon is a profound humility. To understand
what religion is one must first of all be religious oneself; the
essential thing simply cannot be known from the outside.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
On a scientific level I accept the so-called Big Bang hypothesis as
a cogent and reasonably well substantiated theory. What renders
that "model" all the more plausible, in my view, is the fact that it
is clearly concordant with the traditional metaphysical cosmog-
onies. This is not the place to discuss the difference between the
Judea-Christian conception of creatio ex nihilo and the Platonic-
Oriental doctrine of "manifestation"; suffice it to say that I dis-
cern no real conflict between the two positions. The point in
either case is that the universe is ultimately to be explained in
terms of a metacosmic reality, of which it is an effect or a partial
manifestation. This implies, moreover, that such "being" as is to
be found within the cosmos is indeed secondary or derived, a
"being by participation" as Platonists say (which is also, presum-
ably, the import of the ego sum qui sum of Exodus 3:14).
Now this perennial position is of course metaphysical in the
literal sense of exceeding what physics is able to define or com-
 Wolfgang Smith 113

prehend on the strength of its own proper methods; and yet it

seems that the history of physics in our century can well be
perceived as an indirect confirmation of that metaphysical doc-
trine. Let us recall, first of all, that besides the "orthodox" ontol-
ogies of its leading schools, antiquity has bequeathed to us also
a "heterodox" ontology in the form of Democritean atomism; and
it was this heterodox ontology, precisely, which in post-medieval
times was reinstated by Descartes and soon imposed itself upon
the educated thought of Western man. And so it went till about
1925 when the new quantum theory cast seemingly fatal doubts
upon the conception of an ultimate particulate reality. The deci-
sive event, however, came a few decades later with the discern-
ment of ineluctable nonlocality, formulated first as a rigorous
theorem of quantum mechanics, and later verified directly by
certain remarkable experiments.
One could hardly ask for more: the erstwhile atomism has
been deposed, though of course it lingers on as an almost irresist-
ible ontological propensity or prejudice. But that is another mat-
ter, entirely. The point I wish to make is that the contemporary
scientific refutation of Democritean atomism has opened the
door to a serious reconsideration of the long-neglected ontology
of the great traditions. I would say, in fact, that science today has
need of this "perennial ontology" if it is to arrive not at a mere
formalism that "works" but at a cogent interpretation of its own
basic results.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist
hypothesis as such, no matter what one takes to be the mecha-
nism or cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postu-
lated macroevolutionary leaps. I am convinced, moreover, that
Darwinism (in whatever form) is not in fact a scientific theory,
but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific
garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical
data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circum-
stance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins
that ·can be conceived within the constricted Weltanschauung to
which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe. In other words,
once the locus of reality has been narrowed to the categories of
physics-and presumably, of Newtonian physics, no less-it is
114 Aslronomers, Mothemoticions, end Physicists

no longer possible to conceive of "speciation" otherwise than in

basically Darwinist terms.
The matter stands differently, needless to say, if we are wil-
ling to take seriously the ontological conceptions of the pre-
modern schools. For apart from the fact that "primary being" is
assigned (according to all traditional schools) to a metacosmic
plane, one needs also to recall that the cosmos itself is tradition-
ally conceived as a hierarchy of distinct yet interpenetrating lev-
els (a fact which presumably is not unrelated to Margenau's
"transcendence with compatibility"). From this ontological point
of vantage, moreover, our "physical universe" corresponds pre-
cisely to the outermost "shell", the plane of manifestation on
which the "beings" that comprise our world attain a maximum of
separation from each other as well as from their common onto-
logical source.
Now this way of envisaging the cosmos reintroduces some-
thing that has been quite forgotten in Western thought since the
demise of the Middle Ages, and that is the dimension.of "vertical-
ity" and the possibility of "ontological transitions". In the
enlarged perspective of traditional thought, life and the natural
species originate, symbolically speaking, "at the center" and
evolve (in the original sense of an "unfolding") towards the
periphery: first comes a kind of spiritual seed (the logos spennatikos
or ratio seminaleofWestern tradition); then comes an intermediate
state of gestation; and finally a breakthrough into the domain of
visible or "corporeal" manifestation. (As I have pointed out else-
where, this "evolutive" process has been strikingly portrayed in
the second chapter of Genesis [verses 4 and 50]. See Teilhardism
and the New Religion [Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1988], ch. 1)
James Gray once remarked (after commenting on the astro-
nomical improbability of the Darwinist conjecture) that "most
biologists feel it is better to think in terms of improbable events
than not to think at all"; I would only add that the perennial and
universal doctrine to which I have referred does at the very least
deliver us from this predicament.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

Having rejected the transformist hypothesis I have also of course
denied the notion that man has descended from subhuman
stock. I would add that man is special, not in the mode of his
origination, but quite simply in what he is, in the archetype,
 Wollgong Smith 115

namely, which he manifests. And on this point all religions and

all sapiential traditions are in perfect agreement: man is the theo-
morphic creature par excellence, whence his preeminence and his
position of centrality.
Perhaps the most baneful consequence of evolutionist
thought is that it obscures, more effectively than any other
pseudo-philosophy, the true nature of man and the loftiness of
his destiny. One cannot but agree with Seyyed Hossein Nasr
when he writes (with reference to the Darwinist age in which we
live) that "Never before has there been so little knowledge of
man, of the anthropos".
The fact is that Darwinism constitutes a counterposition to
the perennial wisdom of mankind. It represents a systematic
denial of the archetypes, of the essences, of that "participation in
Being" upon which all life and all existences hinge. In the climate
of Darwinist thought most of what the religions teach loses its
meaning or, worse still, assumes another and indeed contrary
sense. To be sure, there have been attempts to fuse evolutionism
and religion; but the point is that these new interpretations of
perennial doctrines have in fact falsified and corrupted what
they pretend somehow to restore or render more palatable to the
contemporary taste. Teilhard de Chardin, for instance, has
unquestionably falsified Christianity even as Sri Aurobindo has
mutilated Hinduism.
At bottom evolutionism is the denial of transcendence, the
desperate attempt to understand life on the horiwntal plane of
its manifestations. Religion, on the other hand, is perforce con-
cerned with transcendence and the vertical dimension, in which
alone the re-ligare or "binding back" can be effected. The sup-
posed merger, therefore, of these opposed doctrines constitutes
one of the most bizarre happenings in these already confused
and confusing times.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
If one takes seriously the traditional ontologies (as I believe one
should), it becomes evident that the problem of origins is inher-
ently metaphysical, simply because the origins in question
involve a transition between distinct ontological planes. We
know of an impressive book entitled The First Three Minutes; it
does not tell us, however, what exists or transpires at t = 0. It
obviously cannot, not because nothing then exists, but because
116 Astronomers, Molhemolicions, ond Physicisls

the reality in question is not subject to the conditions or catego-

ries in terms of which our scientific descriptions are necessarily
framed. Metaphysically speaking, origins are never situated on
the posterior ontological plane.
There are of course "origins" of the different kind-the for-
mation of a molecule from pre-existent atoms, for instance-to
which the preceding observations do not apply; we might refer
to the latter as "origins of the second kind" to distinguish them
from the former class, the "primary origins" if you will. There is
presumably a primary origin "at time t - O"; we would like how-
ever to suggest that primary origins are legion. (In a sense, per-
haps, all primary origins take place "at time t = O", for there is
much to be said for the view that "outside" the physical univese
one finds oneself always "at the beginning". On this subject we
refer to Cosmos and Transcendence ([Peru, IL: Sherwood Sugden and
Company, 1984], chapter 3). There are necessarily innumerable
primary origins simply because the physical universe is not in
fact the closed and "self-sufficient" domain we have taken it to
be. There must also, moreover, be "ultimate endings"; which is to
say that here is a kind of "two-way commerce" between the
physical and the higher ontological planes. Fantastic as it may
sound to a "Newtonian mentality", there is a Jacob's Ladder,
perhaps, along which beings "ascend and descend perpetually".
Science, one can say, is constrained to deal with things that
have already "originated"; it deals, in other words, with things
that exist on the physical plane. There was a time, not long ago,
when this statement would have been received as an unmiti-
gated truism; but times are changing. From a metaphysical
standpoint, in any case, the statement, so far from being a truism,
expresses in fact a most stringent limitation of the scientific
enterprise. What it signifies, quite clearly, is that science, by the
very nature of its methods, is debarred from grasping primary
origins and ultimate terminations; and I would add that this
categorical limitation is especially restrictive in the biosphere,
where birth and death abound.
How, then, should the scientist "approach origin ques-
tions"? With due modesty, I would say, born of the sobering
recognition that his methods provide access only to a certain
"outer shell" of things. There is of course more than enough work
to do for the scientists within his own proper domain; and it
could also be said that, to him who has "eyes to see", that
domain, bounded though it be, points beyond itself-even to
 Wolfgang Smith 117

"the invisible things of God". At the very least, however, the

scientist should be aware of the distinction between primary and
secondary origins and wary of forcing the former into the mold of
the latter as the Darwinists have done. One should remember
that science turns forthwith into pseudo-science and supersti-
tion the moment it oversteps its own proper bounds.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
To me personally nothing is more evident, more certain, than the
existence or reality of God. I incline in fact to the view that the
existence of God constitutes indeed the only absolute certainty,
even as he (or it) constitutes, in the final analysis, the only true or
absolute Existent (in conformity with the Vedantic teaching or
the ego sum qui sum of Judea-Christian revelation).
However, it needs also to be recognized that belief in God is
subject to degrees; and few there are, one must admit, whose
belief in God is altogether whole or unimpaired. One has every
right to surmise, moreover, that belief in God, when it is unim-
paired, is invariably accompanied by a permanent realization of
God in all that exists.
Since God is the source of all being, it behooves us to
"believe" in God with all that we are; which is to say that belief
in God, when it is whole, involves not only the mind, but neces-
sarily every part or faculty of the human constitution ("Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength"). Pascal
was right, therefore, when he distinguished between "the God of
the philosophers" and "the living God of Abraham": between the
God in whom one believes "with a comer of one's mind" and the
God of religion, the God of the saints.
It is easy to forget in this nominalistic age that to believe in
God is to "participate" in Him in a corresponding degree; and this
implies that religious faith, when it is the real thing, is not at all
the blind acceptance of unprovable dogmas it is so often made
out to be but a certain participation in realities of a supra-sensible
order. As such, moreover, religious faith stands head and shoulders
above every form of knowledge-no matter how scientific or
exact-that does not reach beyond the phenomenal plane.
Finally, what bearing, if any, do these considerations have
upon the "problem of origins"? Simply this: to resolve the riddle
118 Astronomers, Mathemalicians, and Physicists

of origins in truth is ultimately to know the one Origin from

which everything in the universe has sprung-and that is God.
To be sure, scientific explanations have their validity, their own
fascination and use; they do not, however, resolve the problem
but only shift the enigma to a deeper plane. If science begins in
wonder, as indeed it does, it ends perforce in a sense of wonder
that is greater still. Thus, to give a particularly striking example,
it is the latest physics, precisely, that inspires in us a profound
sense of wonder and awe in the face of the physical universe;
how paltry by comparison was the "Newtonian model", and
how unspeakably naive the "experts" who mistook that model
for the Reality itself. If the physics of the last century has promp-
ted atheism, the physics of today is inciting at least the more
thoughtful of its votaries to reexamine "the question of God".
 24
The Guidance of Evolution Lets God Appear to Us
in Many Guises
Professor Walter Thirring

• Born 29 April 1927

• Ph.D. in theoretical physics, University of Vienna, 1949

• Currently Director of the Institute for Theoretical Physics and Professor

at the University of Vienna
• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: research on theory of
elementary particles, theory of gravitation, solid state physics; works
include Einfuhrung in die Quantenelektrodynamik, 1954; Principles of
Quantum Electrodynamics (with E.M. Henley), 1958; Elementary
Quantum Field Theory, 1962

These fundamental questions of mankind require a more exten-

sive analysis. Therefore excuse me if I enlarge only on Question
6 (on the existence of God). This may also shed some light on my
opinion on the other points.
I think that scientists who devote their lives to exploring the
hannonia mundi cannot help seeing in it some divine plan. So the
question is not so much whether they believe in the existence of
God but what kind of notions they connect with this word and
with what attributes they would like to endow him. As H. Bondi
once said, "atheism is logically not sound since how can one
deny the existence of something which is only so vaguely
defined". Regarding what and how God is, there are a wide range
of attitudes; some scientists (Einstein, Planck) did not believe in
a personal God, others (Pascal) did. If we agree to talk about God
the creator then he appears to the cosmologist as an abstract law
which governed the Big Bang, far remote from any human fea-
ture. To the extent that these laws determine uniquely the evo-
lution afterwards he cannot acquire any more personal aspects.
He expresses himself only in the Urgleichung ("basic equation"). I
do not share this view; to me the laws of nature appear of another

119
120 Astronomers, Mathemolicians, and Physicists

structure. They form an infinite hierarchy where each lower level

is not in contradiction with the upper level but is not completely
determined by it either. In fact the essential features of the lower
level appear accidental when looked at from above.
To explain what I mean let me for the moment assume that
there is some justice in the present view that the original law of
the universe was some supersymmetric field theory which in the
course of evolution, by some phase transition, broke down to
what we see now, namely strong, electroweak, and gravitational
interactions. The functioning of our universe depends sensi-
tively on the strength of these interactions, but from the point of
view of the original theory these parameters are of accidental
nature, as unpredictable as the thickness of the ice on a lake after
a cold night.
These highly speculative theories may not convince, but in
the past decades it has become increasingly clear that the com-
plex systems we are surrounded with are intrinsically random in
the sense that any uncertainty grows exponentially in time.
Since in quantum theory these uncertaintfos are unavoidable,
the classical determinism is an illusion. Laplace's answer "je n'ai
pas besoin de cette hypothese" when Napoleon asked him ques-
tion number 6 only shows that at that time the compexity of dy-
namical systems was not appreciated. Today all these accidental
features of evolution are put into the Anthropic Principle which
says that they always tum in such a way that eventually man can
live. It is as if God were continuously guiding the evolution. In
such situations one eventually drops the "as if", and I shall do so
in the sequel. This guidance of the evolution lets God appear to
us in many guises: as the fundamental law which governed the
Big Bang to the cosmologist; as the chance which determined the
fate of people to the historian; as the one who revealed himself in
the prophets and in Jesus Christ to the theologian. It appears to
me as if God himself had evolved together with the cosmos and
became more persona) as it developed from a hot plasma cloud to
a highly structured state containing beings like us.
Some scientists consider mankind only as an accidental fea-
ture of the universe since they fail to see us imprinted in what
they think is the fundamental law of physics. Thus they refuse to
give us the title of "coronation of the creation" and do not believe
that God guides us individually since he is much too busy with
bigger astrophysical jobs. Such thoughts are foreign to my mind
as I do not believe that I can understand God with my human
 Walter Thirring 121

logic. I can only appeal to my personal experience when I believe

that he guides me as he appears to do with every little bit of his
creation.
The fierce battles between scientists aDd theologians seem to
me not so much inherent to these subjects but rather due to the
pretentious character of some of their representatives who
believe that they understand more than they do. This becomes
better only once one has learned the due humility vis-a-vis the
great mysteries of the cosmos.
 25
The Question of Origin Seems Unanswered
if We Explore from a Scientific View Alone
Professor Charles H. Townes

• Born 28 July 1915

• Ph.D. in physics, California Institute of Technology, 1939; Nobel Prize
for Physics (shared with Nikolai Basov and Aleksandr Prokhorov),
1964; received the Nobel Prize with Basov and Prokhorov "for [their]
fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics, which has led to
the construction of oscillators and amplifiers based on the maser-loser
principle"

• Currently University Professor of Physics at the University of California,

Berkeley

• Works include Molecular Microwave Spectra Tables (with Poul Kis-

liuk), 1952; Microwave Spectroscopy (with Arthur L. Schowlow), 1955

• Professor Townes on:

the origin of the universe: '' It is true that physicists hope to look
behind the 'Big Bong' and possibly to explain the origin of our uni-
verse as, for example, a type of fluctuation. But then, of what is it a
fluctuation and how did this in turn begin to exist?"
the origin of life: " ... I do not know how life originated".
the origin of Homo sapiens: " ... mankind developed in the more or
less accepted evolutionary way from early forms of life .... we do not
understand this evolution very well-for example, the apparently
large evolutionary jump which led to man's facility with language,
mathematics, and related ideas".
God: "I believe in the concept of God and in his existence".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
I regard religion and science as two somewhat different
approaches to the same problem, namely that of understanding

122
 Charles H. Townes 123

ourselves and our universe. To that might be added, in the case

of religion, understanding of the purpose of our universe. How-
ever, I would not exclude this from science either. Thus, in my
view, religion and science are aimed at much the same problem
and must in time converge.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
I do not understand how the scientific approach alone, as sepa-
rated from a religious approach, can explain an origin of all
things. It is true that physicists hope to look behind the "Big
Bang" and possibly to explain the origin of our universe as, for
example, a type of fluctuation. But then, of what is it a fluctuation
and how did this in turn begin to exist? In my view, the question
of origin seems always left unanswered if we explore from a
scientific view alone. Thus, I believe there is a need for some
religious or metaphysical explanation if we are to have one.

3 Whal is your view on the origin of life: bolh on a scienlific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
My view of the origin of life is not dissimilar from the ordinary
scientific one. That is, I believe that life originated from a concate-
nation of molecular reactions which somehow produced self-
reproducing systems and eventually evolved to our present vari-
ety oflife forms. Nevertheless, I am not at all sure that our present
scientific understanding is adequate to explain such a develop-
ment. Very likely new ideas about complex systems and interac-
tions will be needed. This may even require some type of organ-
izing force or principles which we do not presently recognize.
The simple statement at this point is that I do not know how life
originated.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

I believe that mankind developed in the more or less accepted
evolutinary way from early forms of life. Again, we do not under-
stand this evolution very well-for example, the apparently large
evolutionary jump which led to man's facility with language,
mathematics, and related ideas. As in the case of the origin of life,
one can wonder whether some new principles are involved.
However, the necessity for new principles may be somewhat less
persuasive in this case than in the origin of life itself.
124 Astronomers, Mothematicians, and Physicists

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
I do not know of any special and unique approaches that the
scientists should use towards understanding the origin of things.
Scientific methods are already quite diverse; we use every tech-
nique we can think of and should continue to do so, inventing
new ones as possible. To what extent that will give us a substan-
tially deeper answer to the origin of the universe is not clear to
me. However, I do believe that scientific methods and their
extensions by human wits will likely help us understand the
origin of life in the long run.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
I believe in the concept of God and in his existence.
 26
The Origin of the Universe Can Be Described
Scientifically as a Miracle
Professor Herbert Uhlig

• Born 3 March 1907

• Ph.D. in chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1932; he

has been awarded professional honors by the Electrochemical
Society, the Institute of Corrosion Science and Technology of Great
Britain, and the National Association of Corrosion Engineers; the Cor-
rosion Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is
named in his honor

• Professor Emeritus in the Department of Materials Science and Engi-

neering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: research on corrosion

and oxidation of metals, nature and source of corrosion resistance
exhibited by stainless steels and other corrosion resistant metals and
alloys, effect of chemical environments on fracture of metals, metallur-
gical evidence regarding origin of meteorites; works include Corro-
sion and Corrosion Control, 1963
• Professor Uhlig on:
the origin of the universe: "The origin of the universe can be des-
ribed scientifically as a miracle. A scientific miracle is here defined as
a n'atural event having a very small probability of happening".
the origin of life: Can be similarly described as a miracle.
the origin of Homo sapiens: Evolution of the original simple living cell
or cells.
God: "Faith in the concept of a God ... is essential lo ... ultimate
survival of the human race".

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
Both represent the truth. Science, being relatively recent to
human experience, is gradually approaching, by different routes,
the conclusions reached previously through religous sources.

125
126 As1ronomers, Mothemo1icions, ond Physicists

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
The origin of the universe can be described scientifically as a
miracle. A scientific miracle is here defined as a natural event
having a very small probability of happening.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Life, having a singular non-repetitive first appearance over the
past several billion years, has an origin similarly described as a
miracle. (See my Life, Science and Religious Concerns, pp. 33-42.)

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

The origin of Homo sapiens is logically described in terms of evo-
lution of the original simple living cell or cells.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
Proposed origins, being speculative at best, justifiably take into
account scientific conclusions based on current observations and
available facts, but the inherent uncertainty of any such extrap-
olations should always be acknowledged.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
Faith in the concept of a God who is concerned with his creation
is essential to human hope, an optimistic world view, and ulti-
mate survival of the human race. Any contrary view aligns
humanity with the frustration of a drifting, meaningless universe
facing a despondent future.
 27
There Is a Bohr Complementarity between
Science and Religion
Professor Victor Weisskopf

• Born 19 September 1908

• Ph.D. in physics, University of Gottingen, 1937; received the Max
Planck medal, 1956, and the U.S. Department of Energy's 1988 Enrico
Fermi Award for outstanding scientific or technological achievement
in the development, use, or control of atomic energy
• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: research on theories of
elementary particles, nuclear phenomena, quantum dynamics and
electrodynamics, electron theory, nuclear physics; works include The
Privilege of Being a Physicist, 1989

To answer them (the six questions) one would have to write

several long papers which I am unable to do now. I am finishing
my autobiography, in which some of the questions are treated.
Also my recent essay collection, The Privilege of Being a Physicist,
contains some ideas of that type, especially the essays "Art and
Science" and "The Frontiers and Limits of Science". As to the
origin of the universe, look at my article in the February 16 (1989)
issue of New York Review of Books. Also in the January 1989 issue of
the Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
God?!
In a Jewish theological seminar there was an hours-long dis-
cussion about proofs of the existence of God. After some hours,
one rabbi got up and said: "God is so great, he does not even need
to exist". (Existing is a category, not applicable to God, only to
you, me, the table, and so on.) There is a Bohr complementarity
between science and religion.

127
 28
The Origin of Time Is Not in Time
Professor C. F. von Weizsacker

• Born 28 June 1912

• Ph.D. in physics (with Werner Heisenberg), University of Leipzig, 1933;
received the Max Planck Medaille, 1958, and the Templeton Prize,
1989; delivered the Gifford Lectures ("The Relevance of Science"),
1949
• Director of the Max Planck Institute on the Preconditions of Human Life
in the Modern World, Stomberg

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: research on astrophys-

ics and cosmology, theory of the origin of the solar system, galactic
systems, and evolution of stars; studies in atomic physics, including
axiomatic foundation of quantum theory, quantum logic, and a uni-
fied theory of elementary particle physics with cosmology; works
include Die Atomkerne~ Atomenergie und Atomzeitalter, 1958; Zum
Weltbild der Physik, 1963; Die Tragweite der Wissenschafr, 1964;
Aufbau der Physik, 1985; Bewusstseinswandel, 1988
• Professor von Weizsacker on:
the origin ofthe universe: "The word origin is not clear. If it means
origin in time the main question is not asked, which is, what is the origin
of time itself? The origin of time is not in time".
the origin of life: "I am quite satisfied with the origin of life as
described by modern theories of molecular biology. The question then
is, what are molecules?"

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
I think the relationship between religion and science should be
~~~dship. In the last resort their messages might turn out to be
identical, but this would mean both of them would have to
mature. At present I feel that just in friendship they should ask
each other critical questions. Religion might ask science whether
scientists understand the immense danger into which they bring

128
 C. F. von Weizsacker 129

the world, mankind, and the living world on our earth, if they do
not take their responsibility for the future as their first duty. On
the other hand, science should ask religion, in all friendship,
whether it is not resting on concepts which are outmoded by five
hundred years or more. Both of them ought to mature and then
they would be far closer to each other than they realize today.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
The word origin is not clear. If it means origin in time the main
question is not asked, which is, what is the origin of time itself?
The origin of time is not in time. Martin Luther once said, when
he was asked what God did in the very long time before he
created the world: "He sat in a birch grove cutting whips for
people who asked unnecessary questions". In fact, I feel that the
Big Bang may be quite a good approximate hypothesis, but if you
believe too strictly in it I never know whether this is not just the
creation myth of the very same century in which nuclear wea-
pons were invented. In general, our mythical ideas express our
basic feelings. Scientists in general and many theologians too
have no sufficent training in philosophy. I think the description
of all these things in a philosophy like that of Plato is on a much
higher conceptual level than nearly all the debates I hear in our
days. Still Plato does not know what we know about what we call
"the open future", and hence I cannot just accept what he says.
He himself would have laughed at somebody who would think
two thousand years after him that he could accept it. But on the
other hand, the level of investigation ought to be understood.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
Scientifically I am quite satisifed with the origin of life as
described by modern theories of molecular biology. The question
then is, what are molecules? Quantum theory, I think, would be
fully in agreement with the idea of what I call a spiritualistic
monism, that is, that there is not something which is not living
and beside which there is life which ought to be explained, but
that the basic essence of the universe is to live. Only again these
are words, and the important thing is to have a good philosophy
using these words. This cannot be done in answering a few
questions.
130 Astronomers, Mothemoticians, and Physicists

4 Whal is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

I once had a little monkey for twelve years in my home, and he
was my very best argument for Darwin, because to be descended
from such a nice being is just wonderful.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
I think science and the scientists should approach such ques-
tions by asking what they mean.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concepl of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on lhe concept of God and on the existence of God?
The concept of God is quite a nice thing and very difficult to
discuss, but I have known some great scientists myself, and it
was absolutely clear that essentially they believed in the inexpli-
cable, which people who don't have a better word describe by
the idea of God.
 29
The Origin of the Universe Is a Disturbing Mystery
for Science
Professor Eugene P. Wigner

• Born 17 November 1902

• Dr. Ing. in chemical engineering, Technische Hochschule, Berlin,

1925; Nobel Prize for Physics (shared with J. Hans D. Jensen and
Maria Goeppert Mayer), 1963; received the Nobel Prize "for his
contributions to the theory of the atomic nucleus and the elementary
particles, particularly through the discovery and application of funda-
mental symmetry principles"

• Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University

• Works include Nuclear Structure (with Leonard Eisenbud), 1958; The

Growth of Science: Its Promise and Its Dangers, 1964; Symmetries and
Reflections: Scientific Essays, 1967
• Professor Wigner on:
the origin of the universe: "The origin of the universe is a mystery for
science, surely for the present one. It is a disturbing mystery".
the origin of life and of Homo sapiens: ''The same applies ... ''
God: "The concept of God ... helps us to make decisions in the right
direction. We should be very different, I fear, if we did not have that
concept."

1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and

science?
Science presents very attractive purposes. It is natural for man to
try to add to it. Religion serves mainly as a directive. They inter-
act but very little.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
The origin of the universe is a mystery for science, surely for the
present. It is a disturbing mystery.

131
132 Astronomers, Mathematicians, and Physicisls

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

The same answer applies here as to your Questions 2.

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
He should, perhaps but only perhaps, devote thought to it. But it
may remain an unsolved question for us.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
The concept of God is a wonderful one-it also helps us to make
decisions in the right direction. We would be very different, I fear,
if we did not have that concept. We should abide by it even
though present day science does not support it.
 30
The Hidden Variables of Quantum Mechanics
Are Under God's Power
..........
Professor Shoichi Yoshikawa

• Born 9 April 1935

• Ph.D. in nuclear engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

1961; received the Mainichi Publication Award in 1975 for his work
Challenge to Nuclear Fusion
• Senior Research Scientist and Professor, Department of Astrophysical
Sciences, Princeton University

• Areas of specialization and accomplishments: experimental and theo-

retical plasma physics, nuclear fusion device design; works include
Introduction to Controlled Thermodynamic Research (with A. liyoso),
1972; Challenge to Nuclear Fusion, 1974

• Professor Yoshikawa on:

the origin of the universe:·' I agree with the basic points of the ... so-
called 'Big Bang' theory .... "
the origin of life: "I believe the [Darwinian) theory explains some of
the cases of evolution," but all varieties of DNA chains and egg cells
cannot be accounted for "by the mechanical processes only".
the origin of Homo sopiens: " ... may not be understood com-
pletely".
God: "I think that God originated the universe and life" .
. . . ... . .. .
1 What do you think should be the relationship between religion and
science?
Personally, I subscribe to the old notion that (monotheistic) reli-
gion is above science. However, in my everyday conduct, I follow
the general norm of present-day society that religion and science
have different domains of influence on the human being.

2 What is your view on the origin of the universe: both on a scientific level
and-if you see the need-on a metaphysical level?

133
134 Astronomers, Mothemoticions, ond Physicists

I agree with basic points of the current theory of the birth of the
universe (the so-called "Big Bang" theory). Observational evi-
dences (homogeneity of the universe, the remnant radiation,
deuterium/hydrogen ratio, and so on) overwhelmingly support
this view. Of course, I expect some modifications of the current
theory in the future.
I see no contradiction with the description of the Old and
New Testament concerning the birth of the universe.

3 What is your view on the origin of life: both on a scientific level and-if
you see the need-on a metaphysical level?
I understand the Darwinian theory, and I believe the theory
explains some of the cases of evolution where the external condi-
tions remain static. For example, the development of organisms
in an isolated lake can be understood within the framework of
the theory of evolution. However, it is very difficult for me to
believe that all the evolution or, more precisely, the existence of
all the varieties of DNA chains and egg cells can be accounted for
by the mechanical processes only.

4 What is your view on the origin of Homo sapiens?

In particular, the origin of Homo sapiens may not be understood
completely. The seemingly random events of nature, such as
glacier periods, the apparent size of the moon versus the sun,
volcanic eruptions, the existence of microorganisms (viruses,
bacteria, and so forth) have influenced the development of the
human being. Were they just coincidences? Also the concept of
beauty (music, poetry, paintings, and so on) appears to be shared
by many. The mechanical explanations could be advanced,
but ...

5 How should science-and the scientist-approach origin questions,

specifically the origin of the universe and the origin of life?
The origin of the universe can be understood on a scientific level.
It does not conflict with religion. The origin of life could be
explained by the theory of evolution. However, it is equally pos-
sible that, during the birth of a new life, the selection of a new set
of genes is somehow influenced by a metaphysical force.

6 Many prominent scientists-including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck-have

considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts
on the concept of God and on the existence of God?
 Shoichi Yoshikawa 135

I think that God originated the universe and life. Homo sapiens
was created by God using the process that does not violate the
physical laws of the universe significantly or none at all. (Hidden
varibles of quantum mechanics under God's power?)