Nature of God and Man

8/14/2019 Nature of God and Man

1/85

The Nature of God and Man

by

Sanborn C. Brown, PhD

Professor of PhysicsMassachusetts Institute of Technology


2/85

Prepared in the mid-1960s for a discussion group of the Unitarian Universalist

Church, Lexington, Massachusetts.


3/85


4/85

The Nature of God and Man

I Introduction...............................................................1

II The Methodology of Science...................................9

III Cosmic Evolution and the Physical Sciences.......19

IV Evolution and the Biological Sciences..................29

V Social and Religious Evolution.............................37

VI God, Man and Immortality...................................45

VII Is a New Religion Necessary?...............................53

VIII Glossary...................................................................65


5/85


6/85


7/85

I - Introduction

Man's search for the meaning and thepurpose of his life has been one of hismajor concerns since he first

developed as a thinking being, about

100,000 years ago. In the beginning,

religion was an attempt to understand,

to accept, and in a way, hopefully to

control the phenomena of nature

which seemed pressing in about manon every side and one of the

common reactions of scientists before

they get deeply committed to

wondering about religion is that this

fear which drove him to ancient

religions surely has been dispelled in

the modern age because of the better

understanding of nature.

Actually, however, I think that what

our modern knowledge does is to

make it absolutely necessary for us to

reassess our understanding of religion

and to try and develop a philosophy

and theology which is agreeable to our

present knowledge of science. Now, of

course, there is more to religion than

man's desire to understand himself,

his origins, and his natural

environment. Man, of all the animals,

has the mental power to anticipate

coming agonies. He is inherently an

anxious animal fearful of the threat,

and defense of threats, which Rudolf

Otto termed the "tremendum." This is

a Latin word which translates as "thesource of terror." And the word is a

particularly good one because of its

strange vagueness which best conveys

the most terrifying part of our

predicament and the essence of the

terror within us and without us.

Irwin Goodenough wrote a most

remarkable book, The Psychology of

Religious Experience, and in it he has

an interesting statement about religion

in terms of the tremendum:

"Man throws curtains between

himself and the tremendum and

on them he projects accounts of

how the world came into

existence, pictures of divine or

superhuman forces or beings that

control the universe and us, as

well as codes of ethics, behavior

and ritual which will bring him

favor instead of catastrophe. So

has every man protected himself

by his religions."

Now, for myself, I do not believe either

the concept of religion as an

explanation for man's place in the

universe or the image, graphic as it

may be, that religion is a curtain

protecting us from coming face to face

1


8/85

with the "tremendum." I do not think

this gives religion the impelling

necessity which I believe it has.

Perhaps the most spectacular

development in recent history has

been the truly amazing rise of the

importance of science and the effect it

is having on every facet of human life.

As science continues to heighten the

dichotomy between the natural and

the supernatural, a gulf is widening

between modern man with his

increasing sophistication about thenature of the world about him and the

traditional tenets of religion many of

which are based on obviously false

and disproven facts.

For years, liberal thinkers have been

trying to patch up the conflict,

relegating out-moded theology to the

realm of symbolic representations,teaching their children and their

congregation the magic and poetry of

religious writings based on known

fantasies and trying somehow to

reconcile the theology of primitive

man to 20th century insights. It is, in

my opinion, about time we stopped

this attempt to compromise the new

with the old and start to work towarddeveloping a valid and inspiring

theology for the modern world based

on our present state of knowledge.

Now, of course this search is not new.

The anthropologists tell us that in the

span of the 100,000 years that Homo

Sapiens has been a thinking animal

roughly 1,000 culturally distinct

human communities can be

recognized. Furthermore, a religion

changes in distinct entity about every

1,000 years. If we pursue the arithmetic

we arrive at a figure of about 100,000

different religions produced by man

since Neanderthal time.

What I would like to propose,

therefore, is based on our modern

traditional religion. We shouldgenerate new concepts which are

perhaps more in tune with our present

day living than current religions. For

example, I believe that our Christian

tradition needs some very basic

modification. I think if you tried to

analyze what the basis of Christian

religion is, one could sum it up by the

single word "love." In fact, we oftenhear from the Christian pulpit that

God (and I will define this term in a

little while) is love, in other words, the

concept of brotherly love was the basic

change that Jesus introduced when

Christianity had its beginning.

However, from a scientific point of

view, one sets up a framework andthen does an experiment to see how

the hypothesis upon which the

experiment is based fits the facts. We

all know the facts, unfortunately.

Christendom has been at war almost

continuously since its rise to political

2


9/85

power in the middle ages. Nazi

Germany was a Christian culture

which decimated the Jews. It is

Christian United States that is this

evening bombing Viet Nam.

Now this is just an illustration of the

fact that if our current religion is

giving us a sufficient motivation to

practice its major tenets then as a

scientific experiment it appears to be a

failure and a new set of hypotheses

needs to be developed which

hopefully can have a more compellingvalidity.

I will not for a minute suppose that

what I will outline to you as a concept

of a theology will be able to do this.

My only hope is that by discussions of

this sort mankind, as a whole, can

develop a theology which does have

an impelling validity for us as we areliving. Let me remind you that the title

of this discussion is "The Nature of

God and Man," which implies the

nature of religion.

Let me talk about religion from a point

of view of an anthropologist, and

quote a statement or definition from

Anthony Wallace in a paper given atthe Institute on Religion in an Age of

Science at Star Island in July of 1961.

He introduced into our vocabulary the

general term "revitalization

movement" to denote any conscious

organized effort by members of a

society to construct a more satisfying

culture and he concludes that most

revitalization movements can be

characterized as religious. He points

out that all religions and religious

productions, such as myth and rituals,

come into existence as part of a

program or code of religious

revitalizations, usually originating in

situations of social and cultural stress,

as efforts on the part of the stress-

laden to construct systems of dogma,

myth, and ritual which will serve asguide to effective rescue.

The essential theme of religion is the

conflict between disorganization and

organization. On the one hand, we

universally observe and are distressed

by disorganization in religious

systems. Metals rust and corrode

wood and cloth rot people sickenand die personality disintegrates

social grief groups disunite and

disband.

On the other hand we universally

labor at the contrary process of

organization. Great effort is spent to

prevent rust, corrosion, decay, rot,

sickness, death and disillusion. And,at least in local groups, they achieve

gains in organization or revitalization

as the most diverse creeds attempt to

solve the riddle of the relationship

between life and death, organization

and disorganization, the ideas of souls,

3


10/85

of God, of Nirvana, of spiritual

salvation and rebirth, of "progress" are

all formal solutions to the problem

which seems to be felt intimately by all

of us.

Religion may be said to be a process of

maximizing the quantity of organ-

ization in the matrix of perceived

human experience. A direct expression

of our organization instinct and if I

may again turn to Wallaces useful

term you will understand I am using

religion in its most general meaning ofa "revitalization movement," whether

it be a revealed religion like

Christianity, or a political faith like

communism. We regard these as

extreme, but both have identical

characteristics of man's apparently

instinctive drive to develop a socio-

political religious order out of

disorder, integration out ofdisintegration, and life out of death.

Now one of the characteristics of the

so-called scientific approach to

understanding is to agree for the

purposes of a discussion and

argument on the definition of words to

be used within the framework of a

particular study. One does not have toagree with the validity of the

definition to use it in discussing a

theoretical construct, but only agree to

the same meaning of the word within

the context of the discussion. This is

probably one of the most

misunderstood facets of the scientific

method. For people who have not been

trained as scientists it worries them

that they can agree on a definition to

argue about without agreeing on the

definition.

However, this is a powerful advantage

in the scientific analysis of a tentative

hypothesis and it is the one I want to

use throughout this seminar. In other

words, I am giving you full license to

completely disagree with the contents

of my definition but still to agree thatwhen I use a word it will be as I define

it.

I will write down the definition in

each case so we will be sure we know

what we are talking about, and then

argue about it within that definition.

The misunderstanding of this amongthe general public is quite amazing

sometimes and I am always tempted to

tell a story on myself which involves

precisely this. The definition of a word

in one context may be quite different

to a definition in another context.

A physicist who lectures to elementary

physics courses is very used todefining the word "work" as a force

times the distance in which the force

acts. Some years ago I was giving a

lecture in freshman physics at M.I.T.

and I was talking about the term

work. On the lecture table there was

4


11/85

a large weight which, in the

engineering definition of mass, is

called a slug. It weighed 32 lbs. And

when it got to my definition of work I

carried the 32 lb. weight around at

arms length telling the students that I

was doing no work. According to the

definition, I was not.

The next day when I was unable to

pick up the chalk to write on the

blackboard because I had so strained

my back I was able to make quite a

point with my students about thedifference in definitions between the

physical definition of work and what

the normal public thinks work is.

We are going to do this in the process

of this course. In this seminar I would

like to develop a glossary of defined

terms, which we must agree on as to

meaning for the purpose of ourdiscussion whether or not we have a

personal commitment to its validity. I

will have a personal commitment to it

but you may not.

The first term I would like to define is

one that I have used a number of times

so far without definition and that is

the word theology. I would like todefine theology here as any critical

intellectual attempt to understand the

beliefs and practices of a religious

community.

I would define religion as that activity

by which man attempts to find his

place in the universe, tries to develop

valid goals for himself and his fellow

man within the framework of the

forces which control his destiny.

The thing that I am specifically not

saying here is the following: I do not

mean by religion that elaborate super-

structure of myth and magic by which

primitive man tried to understand and

control the physical world. The

attempt to tie the laws of physics tosupernatural gods and demons has so

confused the development of religion

that many thinkers of every age have

often denied the validity of rational

religious enterprise until they clearly

differentiated between bad science and

respectable theology.

What I really mean by this definitionof religion is that it is the activity of

man to attempt to find his place in the

universe and try to develop valid goals

for himself and his fellow man within

the forces (whatever they might be)

which do control his destiny. The all

pervading search of man to include

the sacred values with some notion of

his destiny or meaning, what dutiesand hopes they present, and what man

must do for his part to cooperate with

these natural forces is the basic activity

which religion often embraces.

5


12/85

The doctrine of mans long range

destiny requires a notion not only of

his fate tomorrow, but his fate in

eternity, a doctrine of the meaning-

fulness of life in the face not only of

more immediate frustration of their

cherished goal but also in the face of

the absolutely certain death of his only

body.

The doctrine of the determinance of

man's destiny requires a recognition of

any pertinent realities outside of man

as well as his own role. And the greatreligions of the world have their beliefs

about God or a god or some reality or

realities whose power vastly

transcends man if they do not ordain

all, and actually man not only is ruled

and ruled completely by these rules

but he must somehow cooperate with

them to be saved or redeemed or to

have a life better now or sometimehereafter. Religions also have their

beliefs about what it is man must do

for his part in the program of the

general salvation of mankind.

My belief is that we can describe these

matters of religion in the language of

contemporary science, and come up

with emotionally and motivationallyeffective as well as realistic belief for

renewing mans sacred values in

guiding his salvation.

Moreover, I think we will be surprised

how closely these scientifically

grounded notions will correspond to

the essential elements of the great

traditional systems of religious belief

when certain semantic translations,

certain use of this dictionary which I

would like to develop as we go along,

are applied to the words we use. We

will develop a tentative scheme, in

other words, for such scientifically

grounded religious beliefs throughout

the course of this seminar.

What I will develop in this seminar is

my own belief that the sum total ofeverything in the universe, including

man, is the forces of nature.

Now nature has been a common word

used in many times. Let me pick out

two particular examples of what I

mean just to put it into somebody

elses words besides my own. Let me

take T. H. Huxley who in 1872 in hisbook Science and Christian Tradition

wrote:

The term nature covers the

totality of that which is. I am

unable to perceive any

justification for cutting the

universe into half, one natural

and one supernatural.

Or, let me take Santayanas statement

in his Reason and Common Sense:

Nature is the sum total of things

potentially observable. Some

6


13/85

observed actually, others

interpolated hypothetically.

Now, whenever you start worrying

about the totality of nature, one must

deal with words which cause a great

deal of trouble. To illustrate this

problem, let me quote from another

book which I hope we can get as a

background book for this seminar. The

book is called Science Ponders

Religion, edited by Harlow Shapley

and published by Appleton Century in

1960. This is a collection of statementsfrom various people. I would like to

choose one from Kirtley Mather who

is a retired geologist from Harvard.

He writes as follows under a

chapter called The Administration of

the Universe:

The rubric Administration ofthe Universe' may be used as

valid scientific designation. It

simply asserts that there is

something pertaining to the

universe which governs the

manifold operations under

investigation and makes them

amenable to intellectual

comprehension.

Nothing whatsoever is implied

concerning the nature of that

something, what it may be is left

wide open for further study.

Specifically, theologians should

note that administration is not

synonymous with administrator.

The latter term has connotations

that are not necessarily ruled out

of consideration in connection

with the former but they are

definitely not applied when the

former term is used in a scientific

context.

On the other hand, the

theologian who truly believes

that God is spirit and not a

material entity will find asignificant similarity between his

'god of law' and the scientists

administration of the universe.

Now this statement of Kirtley Mathers

brings me to the last definition I want

to take up tonight. That is the

definition of God.

You will notice that I believe in the

scientific approach to words and if

there are useful words you use them.

You may have to define them for the

purposes of your discussion but I

think it is silly not to use some

perfectly good words like 'god.' So let

me define God.

My definition of God, for the purpose

of this seminar, is an image of a

unitary system which ordains all that

was and is to be omnipotent,

omnipresent, eternal, and infinite,

creator and sustainer of life and source

7


14/85

of all values, goals, duties, and hopes

for that life. You will also discover that

I believe this is also synonymous with

the term nature.

Now as an added statement I would

like to read a statement which is in line

with the definition I have written

down for God, which comes from a

book (which isn't yet published and

Im going to read from the

manuscript) by Ralph Burhoe who is a

professor at the Meadville Theological

School in Chicago:

"Man is completely, one might

say absolutely, dependent upon

this reality this reality being

the reality of life. No human

thought, feeling or action can

take place apart from it. Such is

the faith of those who have

contemplated those implicationsof the scientific world view.

The so-called triumph and

dominance of man over nature

and the doctrine of scientific

knowledge now makes man more

than ever master of his own fate,

is completely superficial and

erroneous. We cannot alter onejot of the cosmic law whether

it be the law of gravity or the

amount of energy available to

support life on earth.

A more exact way of reporting

the human condition is to say

that the cosmos has given to man

his life and his powers to know

and cooperate with the laws of

the cosmos such that man

becomes increasingly an

incarnation of what the cosmos

had decreed for successful and

advancing life patterns.

In his power for life man shares

with all other living forms certain

powers to take from hisenvironment certain elements

needed for his life or to reject

lethal elements. In this process he

may, within limits, mold or

manipulate certain aspects of the

environment to suit his needs.

These are gifts of the cosmos to

man, not powers that man himselforiginated. In no case can man

advance his life by any means

which the cosmos has not

implicitly sanctioned already. Any

infringements by man of the

sacred rules of life can only lessen

his powers for life for there is

no power or capacity for life apart

from the incarnation of thosesacred conditions or patterns

which only the cosmos

determines. It is only by the grace

of this cosmic reality which

incarnates its laws in the

genotype, the brain, and the

8


15/85

culture of man, that man has any

power of life at all.

Looked at in any depth, the

scientific picture of man is one of

complete dependence on the

cosmos, that man's role,

opportunity, duties, perquisites

and hopes in this scheme maybe

we shall discuss in the future.

But first it is important to recognize

that man is ultimately utterly

dependent for all he was, is andmay be, upon the cosmos.

9


16/85

II The Methodology of Science and Theology

Idefine science as man's search for theorganization of the universe. I wouldlike to examine the methodology of

science and see how it is employed in

building up the intellectual structure

that we term scientific knowledge. The

basic assumption that we must make if

such a search is to have any meaning

whatever is that there exists an

organization. And that there is a

fundamental order and regularity to

nature to be found for the searching.

Science, as we know it, cannot exist in

the face of the beliefs that the

operation of natural phenomena are

subject to fickle variation either from a

naturally occurring lack of order or

more anthropomorphized whim of

gods and demons.

Since the assumption of order is so

basic, science could not develop as an

intellectual framework until such basic

assumptions were believed to be true

and the acceptance of criteria of

credibility based on observational

predictability became a cornerstone in

the framework of scientific

methodology. I define criteria of

credibility as acceptable tests of a

given hypothesis to check its

agreement with known facts within

the framework of contemporary

knowledge.

The early beginnings of science were

founded directly on ancient mans

search for some indication of rigid

order. The early beginnings of science

are tremendously impressive as

primitive man began to probe the

possibilities of an ordered universe. It

is worth turning back the pages of

history and try to capture the immense

intellectual leaps that some keen

minds must have made, first, to

conceive of the concept of order, and

then to lay plans to prove such a

remarkable hypothesis.

If the sun were really a flaming

chariot, guided by some god through

the sky, then the god in human image

must surely be susceptible to human

failure. Some days he would sleep

longer than other days, some days in

his enthusiasm he would race across

the sky, and on the days when he had

a headache he would not have the

energy to use the whip on his horses.

It all seems so completely logical.

The passage of time is a difficult and

sophisticated concept to consider. Yet

the intellectual geniuses among the

ancient Samaritans not only

recognized the importance of this

10


17/85

concept, but they were brilliant

enough to devise experiments in

which they measured time in terms of

space coordinates, building great

temple structures so precisely laid out

in terms of the positions of the sun at

the equinoxes that their measurements

of the number of days in the year were

done to an accuracy of about 1%.

Before the dawn of written history, the

pre-historics conceived of order and

predictability in the universe, and

invented methods to demonstratethese. Perhaps because of these

origins, order and predictability came

to be regarded as a basic element in

the scientific approach to knowledge.

Now the intellectual discipline of

science is not unique in its operation.

To emphasize this point let me point

out its similarity to the acquisition of

knowledge in other fields. Thedevelopment of knowledge can be

differentiated into three phases:

Phase I, the acquiring of facts and

basic concepts;

Phase II, the application of these facts

and basic concepts for skills to extend

the boundaries of the discipline; and

Phase III, the deep penetration into the

fundamentals which produce a basic

understanding of the inter-relationship

of knowledge and the facts which lead

to further implications of this

knowledge. These three phases are

typical of many branches of human

endeavor.

Let me draw a couple of illustrations

outside of science. Take for example

the study of language. Phase I consists

of learning the words and grammar;

Phase II, the application of this

learning to reading and writing here

we have the tools for communication

and for acquiring further knowledge.

But the real essence of the value of

language does not come until Phase IIIwhere prose and poetry are brought to

bear on the human character, our

hopes, our aspirations, our loves, our

hates and the whole gamut of our

emotions.

Let me take another example from the

field of art. In Phase I, we must learn

to use the materials the paints,brush, chisel, canvas, metal, the stone.

In Phase II, one learns to form the

drawing, to put the paint together to

express ones art form in a unified

whole. However, we do not recognize

Phase II as real art. It is not until the

human aspect or emotions are

transferred to the canvas or the bronze

that we reach Phase III and somethingof real value has been contributed.

Now science has the same three

phases, Phase I contains the collection

of facts, the laws and postulates, the

mathematical formulation and the

11


18/85

array of basic building blocks which so

often frighten the non-scientist. Phase

II involves the application of this

knowledge to the extension of

knowledge and to the technologically

useful devices which unfortunately the

layman often confuse with science

itself. But not until Phase III does the

scientist reach the appreciation of the

understanding of nature, its unity and

its beauty, as well as its impact on lives

and emotions of modern man.

One could ask the question whether Iam implying that the discipline of

science can basically be differentiated

from that of art and language. The

answer is, of course, that there is a

difference. But the difference does not

lie in the mechanism of acquiring

knowledge. But rather that the

characteristic which sets the scientific

discipline apart from other fields ofintellectual endeavors is its particular

set of criteria of credibility. A scientist

does not know what truth is, but he

has developed a remarkably successful

attitude of mind which allows him to

reach a consensus with his peers, to

test what is acceptable as an

explanation for natural phenomena

and what is unacceptable.

One of the real difficulties in following

the course of scientific development in

the historical sense is that the agreed

criteria of credibility change as a

science develops. For example, one of

the historical results of using the

concept of order and predictability as

a basic argument for credibility led the

ancients to the concept that self-

consistency could serve as a basis for

truth in the scientific sense. Anyone

who has studied the emergence and

decline of the formalism of Greek

logic, which was based on the self-

consistency of hypothesis and

conclusion, knows that this whole

formalism has not proved generally

useful as an over-all methodology in

science.

The necessity for change in the criteria

of credibility is an inherent feature of

scientific methodology and an

understanding of its operation is

fundamental to an appreciation of

science.

Let me review the basic operation ofthe scientific approach to gaining

knowledge. What one does is to collect

the basic facts in the field one wishes

to study, and to create a model. I am

using model in the technical sense of

an intellectual framework constructed

in agreement with the accepted facts,

which provide working hypotheses for

understanding and implemen-tation.

Now, what you do then is to invent a

model, an intellectual structure, of

how facts may be used to explain the

observation. Furthermore, such a

model may be used to predict further

12


19/85

facts to be looked for which may not

now be known. Often this is called the

process for creating a hypothesis. But

my own feeling is that the term

hypothesis has come to be used in too

narrow a sense. To me, a model is the

whole picture, and the hypothesis is a

guess in a particular area.

After a model has been put together, a

scientist must test it in every way that

his imagination can suggest. I would

like to take as a single illustration one

from the theory of heat. For years andyears people believed that heat was a

fluid which you could pour into a bar

(of metal) and it expanded because it

took some space or it went from one

place to the other because it flowed

down hill, not literally, but figuratively

speaking, from hot to cold. In fact,

many of the words we still use when

we talk of heat are based on this fluidtheory.

As time went on it became obvious

there were some observations which

could not be explained easily by a

fluid theory of heat and an energy

theory was postulated. For 200 years

both these theories were taught in

universities because there was notenough data to separate one from the

other. Subsequently the fluid theory of

heat dropped out of sight and the

energy theory of heat is the one we

now use.

The important thing, however, is that

within the framework of the known

facts, the criteria of credibility were

unable to decide the difference

between an unacceptable theory and

an acceptable one. And therefore both

were used. This is characteristic of the

search for knowledge in terms of

models which we create and then use

in various ways.

Let me say again what Ive just said

about this criteria of credibility,

because I want you to realize that this

is not characteristic only of thescientific approach to knowledge but

obviously also is applicable to

theology and religion. What makes a

model acceptable are the following:

First, a model must agree with

experimental facts to a sufficient

accuracy that an acceptable model

may be differentiated from aunacceptable one. No agreement is

perfect since no model is perfect;

disagreement may mean either an

imperfect model or an imperfect set of

observations, and in general, one may

not know which is the case. In very

refined models which come from

theories which have been tested for a

long time the necessary accuracy forcredibility may require great precision

whereas new models, ones that have

just been thought up, very crude

agreement may winnow the wheat

from the chaff and open new vistas of

understanding.

13


20/85

It is true in physics at least that Nobel

prizes are more often won for

agreement between theory and an

experiment within a factor of ten than

the highly precise agreement with

refined models. This leads to the

obvious conclusion that two different

models at the same time can explain

all the known facts.

Intellectual model-making as I have

described it for science is by no means

unique, as I hope you realize, to thesedisciplines. The search for truth in

theology and religion can be cast in

the same mold. In theology also we

can set up a model and validate the

credibility of what we believe to be

true in terms of agreement or

disvalidate the agreement with the

model.

Take the case within the Christian

tradition of the authority of the bible.

We do not have to believe that the

bible is an accurate historical

statement to appreciate that here is the

searching, the struggling, and the

thinking of approximately 2,000 years

of people in the human race,

represented and symbolized for ourconsideration here is a testimony to

a people who survived about as much

travail and anguish as any people

could be asked to submit to. But it was

more than survival. It was survival

with a development of thought and

quality of being, a chronicle of real

ethical development, the testimony of

a whole culture which has weathered

the hell and high water of history.

It is a model by which to test the

criteria of credibility in theology as

surely as the similar procedure in

science. It is also obvious to all of us

that there are other theological

models, testaments of other religions

against which to validate the goals

which we live by and strive for which

appear just as credible for largesegments of mankind and yet whose

basic hypotheses are quite at variance

with the tenet of the Christian bible.

Thus in theology, as in physics,

different acceptable models may be

credible for different cultures

simultaneously, and within the state of

knowledge of these cultures they are

equally valid.Now you could ask the question,

Where does one look for criteria of

credibility for a theology? I believe

that these criteria are found in the

success of the religious practices based

upon the theology in question. And by

success I mean, how well does it

provide us with valid goals and

aspirations as well as a culturallyviable medium for living with others.

It was to serve as an illustration of this

that I asked you to read Leviticus.

Leviticus is an example of a religious

model agreed to by the ancient

14


21/85

Hebrew nomadic tribes to guide their

behavior in conformity with a

particular theological concept of a

jealous God regulating the behavior of

a chosen people. It outlines in great

detail the laws, for example, of sexual

behavior, what one can or cannot eat,

or even touch.

It also tells how to atone for

transgression of the law, and the

incredibly harsh punishment for those

who really disobeyed the laws. But

more than that, it dictated howcommerce shall be regulated, how to

thresh and to reap and to breed cattle;

it outlined requirements for medical

treatment of the sick, and how one was

not to cut ones hair or trim ones

beard.

The integration between theology and

religions on the one hand, and culturalevolution on the other, is in the

direction that theologies grow out of

cultures, not cultures out of theologies.

So as the ancient Hebrew Bedouin

tribe became more agricultural and

started moving into cities and towns,

the rigid religious model given to us in

Leviticus began to change and many of

the stories we teach our children inschool are the stories of the changing

models based essentially on the same

theological model. The criteria of

credibility were changing and the

validity of the ancient religious model

called into question. Let me illustrate

some of these, particularly in terms of

your reading of Leviticus.

You found that Leviticus was very

specific about mediums and wizards.

Do not turn to mediums and

wizards. A man or a woman who is

a medium or a wizard shall be put to

death, they shall be stoned with

stones. And yet, if you remember the

story of Saul in 1st Samuel when he

was in trouble fighting David he went

to the witch of Endor and assured her

that if she could call up Samuel hewould relieve her of any fear of being

stoned to death. In other words, he

was transgressing some of the specific

laws in Leviticus.

Or we can take another one. You

remember that Leviticus said very

specifically that one must not uncover

ones nakedness, and if so it meantexpulsion from the tribe. Yet perhaps

you remember again the story about

how David when he was bringing the

ark into Jerusalem danced naked in

front of the ark and he got away with

it. True, Michel (the daughter of Saul

she was his first wife) was very

angry at him, but otherwise nothing

happened to him at all. It says inLeviticus, if a man commits adultery

with the wife of his neighbor, both the

adulterer and the adulteress shall be

put to death. And yet we teach our

children about David and Bathsheba.

Also it says in Leviticus that he who

15


22/85

kills a man shall be put to death, and

in the same story of David and

Bathsheba you remember that he sent

Bathshebas husband into the forefront

of the battle so that he would be killed

and so that he could have Bathsheba

for himself.

The purpose for bringing this up is to

give you illustrations of changing

religious models when the criteria of

credibility of an older model were no

longer culturally and/or intellectually

acceptable. In the overlappinggeneration both models were possible

solutions just as in the case of the

theory of heat, the caloric theory and

the energy theory were both models

which as far as one could tell were

acceptable for some period of time.

Having brought into focus the concept

of model building, let me suggest thatorthodox theology has constructed

many models which, though passing

the test of credibility when they were

enunciated, have not kept pace with

our knowledge in other fields.

The strength of a viable theology, as

well as a viable religion based upon it,

must surely lie in the recognition thatmodel building is a dynamic and

evolving intellectual enterprise. Just as

scientists are constantly improving,

updating, revising, and even rejecting

their models in their search for clearer

understanding of the operation of

nature, so should the theologians be

constantly working on their models.

If the methodology of science has any

relevance to other intellectual

disciplines, there is a keystone which

must be accepted as central. A model

is only good as long as it agrees with

all the known facts within the

accuracy of observation. When it no

longer does this, it must be rejected

without sentimentality and a more

applicable one sought for.

This lack of attachment for no longercredible models is perhaps one of the

most misunderstood facets of the

operation of science. When in 1958,

Yang and Lee received the Nobel prize

for destroying one of the main

conservation laws of modern physics

the general public was amazed that

the physicists acclaimed the discovery

as a great step forward instead ofbeing defensive and alarmed that their

ideas had been incorrect for so long.

By contrast, in theology model-solving

is not generally acceptable and I would

like to persuade you that it must be.

With this as a jumping off place let me

point to a few details of the most

productive tool which a scientist usesin evaluating his models of nature.

One of the most important criteria for

a valid theory is that not only must it

agree with the data within the limits

of observation, but it must predict

sensible results everywhere.

16


23/85

This is known technically as a

boundary value problem. In most

comprehensive physical problems the

boundaries can be taken to be the

limits of zero and infinity. To illustrate

what I mean let me take a case from

cosmology.

The process going on in the stars, the

source of their heat, what makes them

expand and contract and how they are

constituted in detail can be explained

in many ways. Since stars and galaxies

are not subject to mansexperimentation and manipulation, for

many years cosmology was a highly

speculative and, in the strict sense of

the word, unscientific, science.

In the steady state, and in the here and

now, there appeared to be no

acceptable criteria for the credibility of

any particular model. As boundaryvalue problems came to be recognized

more and more in the scientific world

as a powerful tool in suggesting ways

to validate a theory, cosmologists

turned to testing conflicting models by

extrapolating time to zero and infinity.

The conditions for testing the details of

stellar evolutionary theory to includesensible criteria at both the birth and

the death of a star or nebula has

proved to be a powerful guide in

sorting out the true from the false.

More progress has been made in this

area since it was reduced to a

boundary value problem than was

ever made considering the steady

state.

Why not apply this method to

theology. Here and now man, as he is

and as he has been since the dawn of

recorded history, is in a steady state

and surely the theologists that have

tried to explain his goals and purposes

have been many, but have lacked

anything like universal criteria of

credibility. The details of biological

evolution of man are commonknowledge, but are our theological

theories valid for man as he first

emerged at time equals zero or take

prime equal to infinity?

The physicists and the biologists

predict with considerable accuracy

when our solar system will have

cooled to a point in time when manwill no longer be able to exist and he

will vanish from the face of the earth.

Theology must define mans goals and

purposes of his existence to cover that

inevitable tragedy as well. Usually,

when we think of the heat death of the

universe, we say to ourselves But that

is so many millions of years away that

it is unprofitable to spend our timeworrying about that when we have so

many more pressing problems of the

present to solve first.

If you are saying that to yourself now,

you have missed my point. Because

17


24/85

what I am trying to emphasize is that

the methodology of science tells us not

only that a solution is more likely to be

valid by requiring consistency and

validity at the boundaries, but some of

the most difficult problems have only

been tractable by worrying more about

the extremes in time than

concentrating on the present.

Let us look at the boundary value

solutions and we may well make more

progress toward a reliable theology for

the present. Now of course this is not anovel idea at all. Many of the older

theologies concentrated attention on

the creation or the last day of

judgment. In their time they were very

successful theological models. It

would be hard to argue against the

success of a religion based on a

creation of man in Gods image and an

ultimate retribution of all the trialswhich beset a good man during his life

as his soul received its reward for

goodness on the last day.

This model certainly gave men goals to

live by, which gave them not only

courage and fortitude to suffer the

slings and arrows of outrageous

fortune but to make them truly workfor the benefit of mankind. It was only

after the credibility of such a model

was shaken by the accumulation of

more knowledge that such a theology

was discarded as inadequate.

Let me now point to another example

which has a parallelism in theology

and religion. Physics, of the 19th

century, concentrated on measuring

every physical parameter and quantity

with ever increasing precision. In fact,

they concentrated so specifically on

detailed measurements that the

reputation of the profession was

synonymous with the highest accuracy

in every detail in every particle

measured. Really, not unlike the

rigidity that you discovered by

reading Leviticus. A 20th centuryphysicist, in contrast, finds more and

more that the interesting problems of

nature to be studied are statistically

random processes. The older methods

of attention to every individual

element is no longer not only

unprofitable but to deal with the

details of each individual particle

might actually prevent the arrival at asolution.

If you think about statistically

fluctuating physical phenomena you

again can start thinking that it is all

very well for me to talk about atoms

and electrons, for example, as

statistically fluctuating. But when it

comes to dealing with humanindividuals, the importance of the

goals and purposes of each person is

as important as the next and one

cannot reduce the dignity of man to

statistical fluctuation.

18


25/85

If you are thinking these thoughts,

then I have again failed to make myself

clear. Because the real lesson to be

learned from the example of physical

methodology of statistical fluctuation

is that by dealing with the problem as

a whole, we understand better the

nature of the individualbetter even

than we do by concentrating on the

individual alone.

Let me again draw your attention to

the fact that precisely this concept is a

proven methodology in the theologyupon which the reputation of

Communism is based. Here is a

religion that is successfully embraced

by millions of people for which it

supplies in a satisfying manner the

goals, aspirations, values, and desires

for service to their fellow men. We

may firmly believe that the theological

model is wrong, but it should notprevent us from recognizing its

importance as an obviously applicable

method in this area of human

endeavors.

The last example I want to take up

here is the use of abstract concept as a

tool for developing and verifying

models. We all know that abstractconcepts are very much a part of the

arsenal of theological contemplation,

but there is a real difference between

abstract concepts to develop an

abstract theological construct and the

scientists use of abstract concepts to

develop experimentally verifiable

models. Even fairly elementary

students of physics get very used to

dealing with psi functions, six-

dimensional spaces, and probability

density, all of which are literally

impossible to conceive of in terms of a

picture of anything.

One might be tempted to say that this

is not basically different from the

elementary theological student who is

sophisticated enough not to try to

picture God, the soul, or the holyghost. But there is a great deal of

difference in the technique of

validating the usefulness of these

concepts between present day

theology and present day physics. The

credibility of the theological model

built on these suggested abstractions

are really not called into question.

Rather the religious person feels that

these concepts must be taken on faith.

They are the underlying bases upon

which the entire structure is built.

Now of course the credibility of the

models in science rests basically on

faith, the faith of the scientist is that

what is experimentally demonstrable

is in fact true. But the scientist doesnot take the abstractions on faith; he

uses the abstractions as a tool to

develop a model that can be tested. Let

me take a very simple example.

19


26/85

It is quite literally impossible for

anyone to picture six-dimensional

space. We live in a three-dimensional

universe and even the science fiction

writers have difficulties

conceptualizing a 4th dimension. Six

dimensions is a pure abstraction

which nobody tries to picture.

Nevertheless, the elementary concept

of pressure, the atmospheric pressure

of the air about us right here, is based

on the model that the multitudes of

molecules bombarding you from every

direction in fact causes the pressurewhich obeys certain rules depending

on the temperature, the volume of the

container and so on which when

calculated in the detail necessary to

pressurize an airplane or pressurize a

submarine uses a six-dimensional

space concept as the vehicle for the

calculation. The model is thus

constructed using this highly abstractconcept as a tool for devising verifiable

theories which may be tested for their

credibility.

Now to turn to my main point,

however, about abstract concepts for

which the human mind may be too

limited to comprehend in any kind of a

pictorial form, let me emphasize thedifference between their place in

theology and in science a difference

I should point out which I find very

distressing.

The basic elements of primitive

religions were very real and

discernible. For Moses, God was so

much of a man that he could talk and

argue with him. For Tutankhamen, life

after death was so physical that he

provided food and drink for himself in

his tomb. The Greek gods cohabited

with mortals.

These highly successful theological

models which violated none of the

knowledge of the day were not based

on indescribable abstractions. Thegenerations of men who set their goals

and validated their lives by living by

these models carried very clear and

credible pictures in their minds of

God, Isis, and Zeus.

However, as the theological models of

today have required modification in

the light of man's greaterunderstanding of nature about him,

theologians have tended to retreat

further and further into the realm of

abstraction, making it more and more

difficult for the common man to find

the basic tenets credible and being

required to take more and more on

faith.

I think everybody will agree that really

spectacular advances have crowned

the efforts of the scientific disciplines

in the last 50 - 100 years and many

people believe that this advance

coincides with a corresponding shift in

20


27/85

scientific methodology toward using

highly abstract tools to validate very

real physical hypotheses.

I feel strongly that the theologians

working to develop a dynamic

theology which can be validated by a

modern religious society should study

this methodological advance which

has proved so spectacularly successful

in the scientific world.

It is not enough to develop highly

abstract ideas of God, the soul, andimmortality. We should stop worrying

about what these concepts mean in the

physical world but use them to

develop a modern theology which can

be validated in the modern world and

in the modern idiom and in complete

agreement with modern knowledge.

Let me conclude by pointing out thatIve taken only three possible examples

from the methodology of science,

which could have their counterpart in

a new theology. I believe it is vitally

important that theology come face to

face with modern knowledge.

Scientific advances have put an

incredible strain on modern societyand as man searches for those ideals

and aspirations which are of ultimate

concern to himself, his knowledge of

the real world must be attuned to his

theology and his religious belief, if

these latter are to be the dynamic

forces in his livingthat I feel they

must be.

21


28/85

III - Cosmic Evolution and the Physical Sciences

What do I mean by a physical science?The easy way would be just toenumerate the various physical

sciences that would come to mind

when one thought of the term

astronomy, physics, chemistry,

mathematics, etc. But this does not

really serve my purpose because of the

popular misconception of these

sciences which has so confused science

with technology, pure science with

applied engineering, and intellectual

exercise with practical utility, that you

may miss my entire point if I do not

make a much more careful definition

than just that enumeration.

Crudely one could say that the

physical sciences are the fundamental

studies of dead matter, mans attempt

to understand the nature of the

inanimate world about him,

particularly in contrast to the

biological sciences which are the study

of living matter. However, I can be

much more precise in this if you will

allow me to introduce you to the

physical concept of entropy.

Entropy, which I define as a

quantitative measure of the disorder of

a system, is really a measure of the

order in the universe. One of the

fundamental laws of physics tells us

that the universe around us isbecoming more and more disordered,

more and more statistically random.

Entropy happens to be defined in such

a way that an increase in entropy

corresponds to a decrease in the order

in the universe. The calculation of

entropy is at times complicated but the

concept, I think, is very simple. Let me

illustrate by two examples.

If you examine a cigarette in detail, the

probability is high that within the

paper wrapper you will find tobacco.

However, as you smoke it, what used

to be tobacco becomes smoke and

ashes. The smoke becomes randomly

distributed in the air and the ashes,

more or less, randomly distributed

about the smoker. The probability of

your finding a particle of your smoke

between your fingers after you have

smoked it is vanishingly small

compared with your former chances of

finding the tobacco in your cigarette

before you smoked it. The entropy, in

other words, the disorder of the

system, has increased and your

cigarette has become more random.

A second, and perhaps macabre,

example may make the concept of

entropy even clearer. Compare the

22


29/85

condition of your body now with what

it will be 100 years from now. Your

body is now in a highly organized

state, an expert in anatomy knows just

where to look to find your various

organs, veins, nerves, muscles, etc.

because you are a very orderly array of

cells.

One hundred years from now you will

have returned dust to dust and ashes

to ashes and your entropy will be

greatly increased. Your organization

will have disintegrated completely andthe chance of finding any order in

your structure will be negligible

compared to what it is today.

In every physical process that we

know of, entropy is always increasing,

the universe becomes more

disordered, and incidentally the

ultimate death of the universe comesthat much closer. Thus by the physical

sciences I mean those sciences which

deal with processes in which the

entropy is always increasing.

There is a fundamental law of physics

which goes by the complicated title of

the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

which says that in every physicalmodel that we have so far been able to

construct in agreement with our

observation, the entropy of every

closed system is always increasing. In

other words, the physical world is

getting more and more disordered.

Now as a way of clarifying this

concept, let me compare the physical

sciences with the biological sciences.

The life process makes order out of

disorder, randomly distributed cells

are formed into orderly arrays, more

complicated structures are made out of

simpler ones, and man grows from a

sperm and an ovum in apparent

violation of the great principle of

physics, the Second Law of

Thermodynamics. Since, in this

biological development, entropy isdecreasing, order is being produced.

Actually, the energy necessary for life

and biological development comes

from the sun whose entropy is

increasing with time. One can think of

living organisms as feeding on the

physical world, decreasing their

entropy at the expense of theincreasing entropy of the rest of the

solar system so that the net entropy of

the whole system still increases, but

the biological development is different

from the physical development in this

regard.

The consistency of the Second Law of

Thermodynamics is maintained by thetotal increase of the entropy of the

universe, but life by itself is an isolated

example of a decreasing entropy

system.

23


30/85

Thus, within the framework of this

earth itself, the physical sciences deal

with increasing entropy systems and

the life sciences deal with decreasing

entropy systems. If the universe as we

know it is running down, heading

inextricably to a fate of complete

disorder, how did it ever get started?

Cosmologists are making progress in

applying our known physical laws to

provide us with a picture of the

phenomena which control the birth

and the death of the universe. But ourmodel is far from complete at the

present time.

Let me give you a brief discussion on

the evolution of our galaxy; in other

words, in terms of the words Ive been

using before, the model of the creation

of our universe.

You will discover that I can start this

discussion at any point and I would

like to start it considering space as an

enormous cloud of hydrogen atoms,

hydrogen atoms moving around in a

random fashion and occasionally

colliding with other hydrogen atoms.

One of the basic laws of physics is thelaw of gravity, which says that any

material substance will attract any

other material substance according to

a very known and tested law. If we

consider space to be bathed in a sea of

hydrogen atoms, these hydrogen

atoms will gradually pull themselves

together under the force of gravity. As

they fall together, they gradually

acquire speed and when they get into

dense regions of other hydrogen atoms

they collide and transmit their energy

to other ones with which they collide.

This process is one in which the

gravitational energy is gradually

changed into random heat energy and

the gas as it collects in clusters due to

the gravitational attraction becomes

denser and hotter.

There are three recognizable stages in

the production of a star. As the

hydrogen atoms are brought together

by the gravitational force, eventually

they will get close enough together so

that the electron patterns around the

hydrogen atoms will begin to interact.

When they interact, the energy isreleased in the form of light and we

can see a visible star. The first stage in

the production of matter is merely to

bring these hydrogen atoms together

close enough so that their fields of

force can interact and light is

produced.

But this is not the end of this attractionbetween the hydrogen atoms. As they

are pulled together they can get close

enough so that nuclear processes are

introduced and the heavy hydrogen

atoms are fused together into helium

atoms in precisely the same

24


31/85

phenomenon as occurs in the

production of a hydrogen sun.

This produces enormous amounts of

energyso much so that further

gravitational collapse of the stars is

inhibited. Let me remind you that one

of the most productive experiments

which physicists have been able to do

(despite ones fear of hydrogen bombs

as military weapons) was to be able to

predict exactly the phenomenon that I

have been discussing as the origin of

stars, to such an extent that they couldproduce a hydrogen bomb and have it

go off the first time they tried it

because the model which they had

produced was accurate enough to

predict not only what elements needed

to be in the reaction but all the details

of this really catastrophic event.

In the last 50 years we have developedsufficiently accurate models to go from

no nuclear reactions at all to a

hydrogen bomb. In the stars this

process takes several billions of years,

the reason being that the statistical

chance of these things occurring is

very small and therefore one has to

wait through a very long time before

the chance encounter of the properelements are all available for such a

reaction.

In the process of fusion, the hydrogen

nuclei turn into helium. Eventually the

hydrogen is all exhausted. When this

occurs, the gravitational forces

between the nuclei take over again and

the star continues to collapse. Because

of the fact that these reactions are

taking place at the center of the star

and it is surrounded on the outside by

cooler hydrogen gas, the star, as we

observe it in the heavens at the

moment in this stage, is red.

Astronomers call this the red giant

stage of a star.

When the hydrogen is exhausted and

the gravitational force starts to pull thestar together again, the temperature of

the star rises remarkably to around 100

billion degrees. At this temperature

the helium, which was formed by the

hydrogen, starts burning. I should

point out that we are unable to make a

helium bomb since the energy

necessary is very much larger than a

hydrogen bomb and we cannot getseveral hundred billions of degrees by

any method that we know.

The way we get the temperature for a

hydrogen bomb is to explode an atom

bomb inside it which is hot enough to

set the reaction off, but a hydrogen

bomb is not hot enough to set off a

helium bomb, though the starssucceed at this very successfully. The

helium starts burning and, in the

process of burning, it makes carbon,

and with the helium and the carbon

mixed together, nuclearly speaking,

oxygen is formed.

25


32/85

Five or six or more helium nuclei will

burn together and make neon,

magnesium, silicon, sulfur, and as the

process goes on, the red giant stage of

the stellar evolution will make all the

elements which we know at present in

the periodic table. The process

continues until the helium is used up

and the star collapses again because of

the gravitational force. This collapses

into what is known as a white dwarf

stara violent rearrangement of the

matter in the star results in atremendous catastrophic explosion

into what is called a supernova.

Several supernova have been observed

in the history of man, and the fact that

we have seen several of them is quite a

remarkable thing. In the supernova,

because of the explosion that takes

place, essentially everything collideswith everything else with tremendous

energy and the rest of the heavy

elements as we know them are

formed.

The stellar material so formed is

hurled into interstellar space, and a

"second generation star starts to be

formed in the same process as the firststar except the second generation star

is now contaminated with the debris

of the exploded supernova. Our solar

system including our sun is such a

second generation star contaminated

with all the elements that were

produced in this catastrophic

explosion.

Now let me go from galaxy formation

to something much closer to home

namely, our own sun. The sun, as it

was produced, started coalescing in

the gravitational field with the debris

of an exploded white dwarf. As the

main cloud condensed, small bits of

the cloud were left behind in a

statistically fluctuating hydrogen gas.

Some particles would come togetherand little clusters would be formed.

These smaller clusters did not involve

so much matter as the sun, hence

when they were compressed they were

not compressed so much, because the

matter was a smaller amount, and

hence they never got as hot. These

formed the planets as we know them

which were cooled quite rapidlycompared with the sun, condensed

into solid rock, and became the planets

as we now know them.

Let me now return to my definition of

entropy. You will notice that when I

started, I started building up

universes, galaxies, out of statistically

fluctuating hydrogen gas. From ourlimited knowledge of science, we do

not know how big a system is required

for the Second Law of

Thermodynamics to be valid. But we

do know that once we have isolated

the sun, as a system, disconnected

26


33/85

from the rest of the galaxy as far as its

nuclear burning is concerned, the

Second Law of Thermodynamics is

definitely in operation; we have

formed an isolated system in space

and the entropy will keep on

increasing.

Disorder will continue to be the basic

concept of the solar system. To put it

another way, this means that the hot

part of the solar system will cool off,

and eventually it will all come to a

uniform temperature and it will havearrived at a condition of maximum

entropy.

These processes are long-term

processes, they are so long term that

when I give you the numbers it means

nothing to you whatever. This

unfortunately is a limitation of the

human mind which we can do nothingabout. I will give you the numbers

anyway.

The life history of the first hydrogen

cloud was about 20 thousand million

years. The explosion part is 10 billion

years and the second generation star

which includes our sun in our own

galaxy has an age of about 4.5 billionyears.

The question that really should be in

your mind is what has this to do with

a theological model which I am

discussing in this seminar. What I have

been presenting is the image of a

unitary system which ordains all that

was, is, and is to be...the first part of

my definition of God.

Certainly forces which are capable of

both building up and destroying

universes, fall within the meaning of

the next word which I have in the

definition: omnipotent.

But fully as important as our ability to

develop a credible model of all that

was, is, and is to be in the physicaluniverse is the homogeneity of

absolutely every detail. Perhaps not so

remarkable is the fact that the laws of

gravity work just as specifically to hold

you into your seat as they do to hold

the solar system together, to hold the

galaxy together; and in fact to draw the

hydrogen nuclei together which form

the galaxies in their original shape.

As I say, perhaps this is not so

amazing, but what does seem fantastic

to a physicist and to an astrophysicist

is that as far as we can observe all the

elements which we know on the

surface of the earth, which we

manipulate in our laboratories, are

found in the furthest reaches of theuniversesnot only are the elements

the same, but the isotopic abundances,

the relative weight of the same

elements with slightly different

nuclear arrangements are precisely the

same whether we observe the light

27


34/85

coming from the most distant star or

create the light in an electric arc in our

own laboratory. There is, in fact, no

indication that what we observe as the

structure of matter in the farthest

reaches of space are different in any

detail than those that we see in our

laboratories or find on the surface of

the earth.

It is this extraordinary universality

which leads me to use the word

omnipresent'' (everywhere

present)in my definition of God.

Included in this universality of the

laws of nature is the almost certain

existence of life in other parts of the

universe. The statistical probability of

finding other forms of life by chance

encounter may be terribly small, but

you will have discovered by reading

Shapleys book that it is reliablyestimated that there are about 100

million other galaxies.* By galaxy, I

mean an island universe (one of the

words that Shapley uses).

We are in a spiral nebula and we are

one little speck off on one side. There

are about 100 million other galaxies.*

Within our own galaxy there are aboutone million planetary systems which

are capable of supporting life as we

know it.

Since we cannot postulate life in any

other form than we know it, there may

be others but there are at least_________________________________

*Today, with better data from

improved telescopes, particularly

those orbiting in outer space,

astronomers now believe the number

of galaxies exceeds 1 billion.

28


35/85

one million planets which are capable

of supporting life as we know it.

Although the chance of finding a

manlike animal living in other celestial

bodies may be extremely small, the

number of habitable worlds in the

known cosmic space may well be of

the billions. In the face of numbers like

these, the theory of probability tells us

that we are almost certainly far from

unique.

I think some of the most interestingexperiments that are being done by

physicists these days are attempts to

discover other intelligent messages in

the light or the radio waves which

come to us from other galaxies. These

experiments have not been successful

so far but this is, I am sure, a result of

our own inability to think about how

to do the right experiment.

What I have been talking about so far

has been a boundary value problem

applied to the boundary at time equal

zero I have been talking about the

origin of the universe up until now.

What about the future?

Here, I want to turn to one of theconcepts that I talked about last time,

that is the use of highly abstract

concepts which lead to very real

predictions and which have seen

tested by very rigid criteria of

credibility and found to be correct in

every way. I do not expect you to

understand the theory and I will not

even present it to you, but the

scientific community as a whole has

agreed that this is a valid theory.

The theory is Einstein's general theory

of relativity. When Einstein applied

this highly mathematical general

theory of relativity to a model of the

universe he found that to be consistent

with this theory it was necessary to

postulate not only that space was

curved but space also was bounded.The universe, a collection of dust, rock,

stars, galaxies, and hydrogen nuclei

was spread out uniformly in a

spherical volume, spherically

symmetric and closed. It actually

turned out that his spherical

assumption was not necessary. It made

the mathematics easier, but as the

mathematicians have become moresophisticated they have tried less

symmetric solutions the answer is

the same, although the mathematics is

much more difficult.

When Einstein and his co-worker at

the time, Friedmann, first calculated

the details of this universe, they firmly

believed (and the astronomical data atthe time seemed to show) that the

universe was in static equilibrium; that

is, that the radius had a given value

and that it was staying still, however,

their solutions as they set them up,

predicted a dynamic universe. It said

29


36/85

that the universe was either

contracting or expanding; it certainly

was not staying still. So sure was

Einstein and Friedmann that they had

made some kind of a mistake in their

calculations, that they added what was

called for many years a cosmological

term in their mathematics, the only

purpose of which was to fix up the

theory to agree with the accepted

astronomical evidence of a static

universe.

Now you all are familiar with theDoppler effect. If an automobile goes

by you honking its horn, the pitch of

the horn seems to be going down

when it passes, particularly noticeable

nowadays when an airplane goes over

your head, the sound of the airplane

always lowers in pitch after it starts

going away from you. This Doppler

effect allows you to calculate and tomeasure the speed with which things

are receding or traveling toward you.

If you dont believe it, dont get caught

by a radar used by the police, that is

precisely how they tell how fast you

are going.

The astronomer Hubble, after Einstein

and Friedmann had worked out theirtheory, showed that there was

irrefutable spectroscopic evidence that

the light coming from distant stars was

shifted toward the red which meant

that the universe was expanding, the

edges of the universe were going away

from us.

Einstein dropped his cosmological

term, returning to the equations of

relativity in their original form which

had been tested by three famous

experiments which astronomers had

carried out (the most spectacular of

which was to measure the bending of

light as it went by the sun).

If Einstein had had enough courage to

be sure of his original prediction, thegreat discovery of Hubble would have

turned out to be another proof of his

theory. But as it was, he dropped this

cosmological term and was

embarrassed the rest or his life that he

had not believed his own theory.

There is no doubt that, if one is to use

the accepted model of the theory of

relativity, the universe is expanding.Calculations based on the rate or

expansion now, which incidentally is

not constant but slowing down from

its original rate, extrapolated back to

time equal zero (in other words, when

the universe began) give an age of 1010

years, thus is in agreement with other

measurements of the age of the

universe.

What the general theory of relativity

tells us, furthermore, is that the

universe is an oscillating sphere which

expands and contracts with a

frequency so slow as to be

30


37/85

incomprehensible to our imagination

but nevertheless goes through this

dynamic oscillation.

This sphere is bounded and, as far as

our knowledge extends, there is

nothing outside it. This we cannot

conceive of. Our whole concept of

space must, in our human mind, have

something outside a spherical

universe, but I suspect that this is our

fault, not the universes.

Nevertheless, we also know that thisexpanding stage, which we are now in,

has already begun to slow down.

Eventually, the gravitational forces

which are always acting to pull

together matter will overcome the

present expansive phase and the

universe will start contracting. The

density of matter will gradually rise to

fantastic values, the temperature willgo up, and up, and up, approaching

the immense heat necessary to form

new universes, and the process will

start all over again.

What does this say about the

possibility of life in twenty thousand

millennia from now? It will be

absolutely and literally impossible.

You often read that the sun is runningdown, the Second Law of

Thermodynamics tells us that the

entropy is increasing, eventually the

sun will burn its hydrogen out and it

will cool down.

Even if by then (and still we have some

billions of years to work on the

problem) we are able to escape the

solar system and find some more

congenial medium in which to live, the

basic expansion and contraction of the

universe predicted by the theory of

relativity will eventually make all life,

everywhere in the universe, absolutely

impossible.

You can quite properly ask the

question: "Am I bringing this up just

as an illustration of a boundary valueproblem, or as a model which has

been successfully tested by our best

criteria of credibility? Now although

both of these things are true, it is not

for this reason at all, but rather for its

deep, theological implications. Let me

point out that this theoretical

prediction of general relativity has a

direct consequence on our definitionof God. I have defined God as eternal.

The curvature of space predicts with

absolute certainty the annihilation of

all living organisms of all possible life.

It rules out therefore, in my opinion,

any image of God which is a projection

of human emotions; i.e., love, value,

hope, or even life itself.

These will all disappear when the

environment of the universe will be

sufficiently hostile in its contracting

phase and therefore any image

involving any human projection is not

31


38/85

eternal. The laws of nature, however,

are eternal, and they are also infinite, if

by infinite you mean the furthest you

can ever go in space or time. The laws

of nature are eternal even when all life

has been destroyed.

Now perhaps one of the most

misunderstood facets of the God I

have been defining is the apparent

lack of the adjective personal. As a

characteristic of that definition, the

primitive human brain almost

automatically projects its self-image oranimistic characteristic on all it

perceives. Early men and their

religions, as well as the belief of

children, have this very definite

characteristic.

Even highly sophisticated theologians

and physicists may be thrown back

onto this inherent characteristic of thecentral nervous system, when a

response is elicited largely from the

lower brain as happens under duress

and stress or even if you stub your toe.

If you listen to what people say, it is a

very personal affront which they take

from the stonethey may even kick it

again which does little good to them

and certainly no harm to the stone.

Yet, my personal response as a man to

these almost incredible laws of nature

are as truly a satisfying religious

experience as I can imagine. The

scientific cosmos is more like the God

of the inescapable law in the Old

Testament. It is a single integrated

system of reality and the law of its

operation creates and sustains all that

is from everlasting to everlasting.

It is more like the deity portrayed in

religions where man must serve and

obey, rather than like the ones which

include Judeo-Christian religion where

the deity is as man can imagine him,

and perhaps even manage him and

persuade him.

The only God that contemporary

science allows is an immutable system

of reality, so superhuman in character

that no human pressure of any kind

can avail to change it. All that man can

do is to seek the law of this deity and

adapt and conform, or else cease to be.

Yet, I often wish I were some kind of apoet, to be able to show you what a

scientist feels about his science. The

scientist, by the nature of his

profession, revels in the closeness of

the stupendous vastness of the

unknown which most of us one way or

another define as God. Perhaps few of

you in this room have been able to

really experience the incrediblevastness of the heavens.

But imagine that you were with me

when I was young, standing on a

moonlight night on the top of a

mountain which you never heard of,

32


39/85

called Ein-en-Sur. The Lebanon

mountains 50 miles to the west acted

as an impenetrable barrier for the

clouds from the Mediterranean. The

nearest electric light is in Damascus,

80 miles to the southeast and shielded

from us by the foothills of Mt.

Hermon. In the early 1920s

automobiles did not travel at night on

the dusty unpaved roads far to the

south, for a breakdown would surely

mean an unpleasant encounter with

roving bandits.

Stand with me on this isolated peak

and look up. The stars are oppressive

in their brilliance, the Milky Way is not

a dim band which in Lexington,

Massachusetts, you sometimes confuse

with weak northern lights, but a

brilliant band of myriad dancing stars.

Mars is like a great red beacon and the

Andromeda nebula a mysterious, ill-defined, shiny cloud which cannot

help but draw your thoughts out

beyond the confines of the world. Our

solar system is an insignificant dot in

the nebula we call our universe. All

the stars we see from this mountain of

ours are in our universe, except the

Andromeda nebula.

The Milky Way, whose stars are so

numerous that we cannot resolve them

into separate points of light, are the

arms of the great spiral nebula in

which we exist. Nor is our universe

unique, for although the nebula in

Andromeda is the only other one we

can see with our naked eye, there are

millions of others. Together these

nebula form a super-galaxy which we

can describe as bounded, though the

human mind cannot appreciate this,

and there is nothing outside. In these

vast reaches of space, all physical laws

ar

Documents

Nature of God and Man