The Church Times, London, November 28,1997 The search for the divine has been pursued, often unwittingly, by the scientific community, says Keith Ward STUMBLING UPON THE GOD THEORY MODERN PHYSICS has taken over the role that natural theology used to play in British intellectual life. In the early years of this century, philosophers and theologians wrote and lectured on the ultimate nature of reality, on human nature and destiny. Tennant, Bradley, McTaggart and MacMurray considered the great themes and grand panoramas of speculative thought, and wove vast sub-Hegelian tapestries of elegance and erudition. Since those years, philosophy and theology have for the most part lost confidence, and now they sometimes wander disconsolately in a post-modern landscape, muttering scraps of disconnected narrative. Now the grand narrative of the nature and destiny of the universe has been taken over by physicists. They do not all agree on their theological recommendations, but Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, John Barrow, John Polkinghorne and many others all have grand tales to tell of the beginning and end of all things. Moreover, they all take seriously the question of God, as a possible terminus to the human quest for explanation of why the universe has the elegant organised complexity that they see it to have. THE DOGMA of fundamental science is that there is an explanation for everything, that nothing is just inexplicable brute fact, that there is an inherent intelligibility to the way things are. The dream of fundamental science is that some reality will be found which explains absolutely everything, including itself, in a finally satisfying way. Some of the candidates for this role are extraordinary. Some maintain that every possible universe somehow exists (the "many worlds" theory). Since every possible world exists, this universe is bound to exist, and that is its ultimate explanation - it cannot fail to exist. Others suppose that the universe is a result of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum (the "free lunch" theory), which sooner or later inevitably give rise to this universe. Again, the ultimate explanation is that the universe is bound to exist. There are other theories, too. But it is beginning to strike an increasing number of physicists that the simplest, most probable theory is one that has been there a very long time. It is the "one God" theory, that there is an actual being which is the basis of all possible worlds, and which has the power to bring about this universe because this universe realises a set of great and distinctive values. Such a God has the necessity which a "final theory" requires. God cannot fail to exist, because God is the basis of all possibilities. And God is a better explanation than quantum fluctuation, since one needs to explain why basic quantum states and laws are as they are, how fluctuations can happen when time does not exist, and how one can be sure that every possible fluctuation will occur. God explains these things by a combination of necessity (God's reality exhaustively covers every possibility) and rational purpose (states are made actual because they cause distinctive values to exist). Moreover, the theory of God has a high probability, in that a universe which gives rise to personal agents by highly elegant natural processes is much more likely to exist if it is selected by intelligent choice than if it comes into being by chance. Since, on the theory, God exists by necessity (and thus with a maximal probability), the theory of God makes the existence of this universe much more intelligible. In addition, the theory of God has the virtue of extreme simplicity. It accounts for all things as effects of just one being. It unifies all possible states by placing them in one omniscient mind. It defines God by one simple formula - God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. It assigns just one type of reason for the existence of all things - they are created for the sake of goodness. And it unites necessity and freedom, scientific and historical explanations, in one reality which is necessary in its basic nature and personal and free in its creation of the universe. In all these ways, the idea of God matches very closely the physicists' dream of a final theory of everything. The catch is that, since we will never wholly understand God, we will never actually be able to understand everything. That, however, is scarcely surprising; and it is perhaps enough to believe that everything can, at least from God's viewpoint, be finally understood. By the crucial scientific standards of probability and simplicity, the idea of God scores very highly on the physicists' demand for explanation, and much better than any known alternative. IS THIS a revitalisation of the arguments for the existence of God, allegedly buried for ever by Immanuel Kant, and shrugged off with embarrassment by many theologians ever since? Indeed it is. The physicists are encouraging us to be bold in informed speculation, to look for the most probable explanation of why things are as they are, to explore what is implied in our commitment to the rationality of science itself. We are not, of course, going to come up with proofs which will convince everyone. But we are, I think, going to discover that the idea of God is not some blind leap into absurdity: a belief held in face of all the evidence. On the contrary, we will find that it is a highly plausible candidate for the best explanation of this amazing universe, and a wholly rational belief to hold. Sometimes physicists who can see the point of positing a vastly intelligent God whose existence is necessary and whose purposes are rational cannot quite see the link with religion as it is practised. The link is simple: the God whose love is declared to Christians in the person of Jesus, who calls us into fellowship with the divine life, is the creator of all things, who makes this whole universe to be what it is, and who will ensure that the purposes of creation are ultimately realised. To see that the universe is, both in its general structure and in its precise detail, a work of supreme wisdom, that it depends at every instant for its existence on a being of supreme goodness, and that the universe is destined to realise a goal of overwhelming goodness, is already to see the temporal world in a religious way. It can lead one to see the eternal in the temporal, to place the things of time in an eternal perspective. It can lead one to revere and contemplate with awe and admiration the one creator whose glory and power are seen in the works of creation, but whose being infinitely transcends that whole creation. The search for wisdom, said Aristotle, begins in wonder. That search, for the religious thinker, ends in worship. It is strange but true that it may be the physicists who lead us in that search, though it will still be the saints who tell us of its end. Professor Ward is Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford and a Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. This article is derived from his Gore Lecture, delivered at Westminster Abbey on Wednesday evening. Professor Keith Ward The Church Times London
Return to rants