4 Big Bangs?

I’m currently reading a series of e-books by Robert Kurland, physicist and blogger at Reflections of a Catholic Scientist. The latest installment, Science Verses the Church, starts with “ways of knowing” and the limits of science, and continues on with a brief history of the Church and science and then into topics of cosmology, anthropology, evolution and much more. Each topic is presented with a plethora of perspectives from differing scientist, including the author himself, and it’s all related back to the perspective of the Church.

As is often the case, reading good books can trigger insights and connections to other related items I’ve come across in the past. Case in point is this video about 4 Big Bangs and the existence God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIorXcloIac&t=10s

Bang 1:  The Cosmological Big Bang:

This is the one you might be most familiar with. Both believers and non-believers might gladly agree that the universe began some 13.7 billion years ago and that every effect must have a cause, so if there was a Big-Bang there must also have been some sort of “Big-Banger.” In other words, something outside of the known universe that was a necessary condition for the existence of the known universe. It might even be called a “creation event”. Does this prove the existence of God? I think not, but I do think it is relevant data to include in any discussion about a reality that is unconditioned by time, space, matter and energy…and what a curious thing that would be.

In his book, Robert cautions that even if the physical universe is infinite, it does not contradict Catholic teaching. “If we believe God is the author of all, a First Cause, then He can create an infinity of universes, as in the bubble universe hypothesis of Linde or in the parallel worlds given by some interpretations of quantum theory. Economy of effort is not required of God.”1

Bang 2:  The Abiogenesis Big Bang:

How did dead stuff become living stuff? No one really knows. Robert was clear about this in his book. “There are a variety of theories—one might better call them speculation—but until a model is produced that can be empirically verified, it will remain a mystery.”2

An evolutionary process of natural selection and/or survival of the fittest cannot be used to explain how the first living thing came to be. The very first cell (or proto cell) had no parent(s), no genetic ancestors to evolve from; to say it came about through the random jostling of matter and energy might be a kin to saying a running computer could come about through the random jostling of electricity and electronic parts. Whether a living cell or a computer, it’s not just a matter of the right parts being in the right physical location; the parts need to be both integrated and interdependent for anything meaningful to happen. There is no reason for a keyboard, a mouse and a screen to be carefully integrated together with software and electricity unless there was some intention behind it. Could we not say the same for the parts of a living cell?

Bang 3: The Biological Big Bang:

This is about the huge diversity of life on earth and why are there such big differences between bacteria, plants, animals and humans. An atheist might say “Evolution did it!” just as quickly and mindlessly as a Deist might say, “God did it!” Neither answer is intellectually satisfying by itself, but we can still draw some inferences from the facts.

For example, the human brain appeared on the scene in a geological instant and it seems to be evolutionary excess in terms of only needing to survive and reproduce. Bacteria, trees and chimps survive just fine on this planet. There is no need for a life form to be so much more intelligent than them, let alone a species capable of producing individuals like Newton, Einstein and Shakespeare. So what’s the real reason? Is it an intentional purpose or no purposeful reason at all?

Bang 4: The Anthropological Big Bang

Beyond being able to manipulate their environment better than any other living thing, humans are self-reflective, have free will and like to ask “why”. Besides the aforementioned, The Anthropological Big Bang is about man’s moral and aesthetic sense about the Good, the Beautiful and the True. Can all these traits be explained by merely seeking biological opportunities, or by avoiding biological dangers?

Chapter 7 of Science versus the Church is called “Who Has a Soul?” and covers the relation between soul, mind and consciousness. Perhaps one way to define having a soul might be the capacity to wonder where we came from, what will happen when we die, who or what made everything and why. Some philosophers take the materialist position that the soul is merely the brain, and the brain is just a “meat computer”.

The author takes the view of philosophers who believe that consciousness is a phenomenon that can never be fully understood scientifically because our understanding is limited by our own consciousness. There are things we cannot experience or “know” in terms of consciousness. If we cannot know it, how do we study it? If we’re born blind, we can never know what seeing color is really like, even if we know all there is to know about the physical aspects of light reflecting off matter and the physical process it would take to see it. An even better example is from an article by Thomas Nagel called “What’s it like to be a bat”. Unless you are actually a bat, you can never have the same experience as a bat using echolocation no matter how much you study sound waves as a human.3

According to the video linked above, none of these 4 Big Bangs show evidence of gradual development over time. That’s why they’re called “Big Bangs”. Since evolution does not explain them in terms of survival of the fittest with slow changes over time, what can we say about them with intellectual honesty? It doesn’t seem like a far stretch to say there must be something beyond "the physical" which caused "the physical" and that there is a purposeful design behind it. Even with no absolute empirical proof and no faith, this becomes a reasonable and responsible position to hold given all the data from all 4 Big Bangs.

Simply put, the end result is more than mindlessness can do for itself.

1. Robert J. Kurland, Top Down to Jesus Book 3, Science verses the Church (Robert J. Kurland, 2016), e-book, PDF pg. 61.

2. Kurland, Top Down to Jesus Book 3, Science verses the Church, PDF pg. 80.

3. Kurland, Top Down to Jesus Book 3, Science verses the Church, PDF pg. 105.

Reasonable & Responsible

Continuing some reflections from the book “New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Fr. Robert Spitzer, let’s consider the significance of infinite vs. finite past time and why the discussion might matter.

Most scientists accept and that our universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the big bang actually happened as the beginning point. When Fr. Spitzer refers to “the universe”, he does not mean only our universe as in one of many, he means ALL physical reality (time, space, matter, energy, etc.); anything that is not nothing.

There are several speculative scenarios about the universe where “something” was supposed to have happened or physically existed before the big bang, so the big bang is not really the beginning of the universe or the beginning of time. These scenarios are called Past-Extended Big Bang models or PBBM’s. In the book, Fr. Spitzer runs through many arguments for the Standard Big Bang model as the most reasonable & responsible model; where the big bang IS the beginning of time and of all physical reality (you’ll need to read the book for all the excruciating details).

The discussion reminded me of the problem analysis method we use where I work. Specific inputs about a specific problem (data, experience, judgment, knowledge) are used in a specific troubleshooting process. Before using (or wasting) company resources testing random possible causes, we first determine the most probable cause via reason alone; this becomes the cause we test first without any absolute proof that it is actually correct. The most probable cause is the proposed cause that has the most reasonable assumptions, the fewest assumptions and the overall simplest assumptions given ALL the inputs available; reasonable & responsible as Fr. likes to put it.

He says:

“In view of the extensive applicability and preponderance of evidence for a beginning of the universe (and the narrow and tenuous path which must be taken to get around it), it can be concluded that the evidence currently supports a reasonable likelihood of a beginning – a point at which the universe came into existence.”

Other interesting discussions revolve around the odds of an anthropic universe (one that will allow the emergence of ANY life form) materializing by itself as a random occurrence. What are the odds of all the necessary physical constants being set precisely as they are? An analogy was given in the book to demonstrate something that is physically possible, but might be called statistically impossible; it involved a monkey and a keyboard. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing at a keyboard and outputting a perfect transcript of Shakespeare’s Hamlet? There are no laws of physics that will prevent the monkey from hitting all the right keys, but to think this will happen by itself is unreasonable & irresponsible. If we did see it happen would we say, “That’s one lucky monkey” or would we suspect an intelligent agent was influencing the monkey somehow

What else is physically possible, but might be called statistically impossible? How about a game of pool? What are the odds of you breaking a pool rack only to find that the balls settled back down (randomly) to reform the same exact triangle? Again, there is nothing in the laws of physics to stop it from happening, but it won’t. If it did happen would you say, “What an interesting coincidence” or would you be spooked out of your mind?

 

Think of winning the lottery, but not just once. What would be the odds of winning one thousand times is a row? There is nothing preventing you from picking all the right numbers every time, but to think this will happen is unreasonable & irresponsible. If somebody won that often would you say, “Lucky-bum” with a shrug of the shoulders, or would you say the game was rigged. The same is true with the remarkable fine-tuning observed in the universe. To think it can all happen randomly is something unreasonable and irresponsible. Creation must be rigged in our favor so to speak.

So back to why contemplating infinite vs. finite past time might matter. Things happening BEFORE the big bang obviously bring back discussions of infinite past time, space, matter and energy. This is a very helpful assumption to hold on to if we are to say there is no God because an infinite universe brings infinite possibilities, which makes improbability disappear. This explains away the analogies of the monkey with the keyboard, the spooky pool rack and the mega lottery winner.

Even with the big bang as the beginning of time, an infinite number of dimensions to our universe (a multiverse) will still bring back a discussion of infinite possibilities, but Fr. Spitzer explains in the book that a multiverse cannot currently be verified through evidence. Of course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than an infinite deity, but this would rest on FAITH and not observation.

Seems to me, Fr. Spitzers' book is all about intellectual honesty coupled with reason's responsibility. Using reason alone, we can construe that an intelligent unconditioned reality must have been the cause of every conditioned reality, or in other words, there must be something beyond "the physical" which caused "the physical" and that something must be intelligent. Even with no absolute empirical proof and no faith, this becomes the most reasonable & responsible conclusion given all the inputs we have, including the new inputs from contemporary physics and philosophy.

Today's Gospel was appropriate:
"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"
John 3:12

 

Professor Ratzinger on Modern Physics

WARNING: I about fell out of my chair when I read this. Please be seated with seat belts fastened before reading.

This is the final post in a series paying tribute to Pope B16 seven years on. Below sums-up several pages of Introduction to Christianity, Part I, Chapter V, Belief in the Triune God.

Faith consists of a series of contradictions held together by grace. This expresses, in the realm of theology, a discovery that relates to the law of complementarities in physics. Here we meet the play between faith and modern thought.

The physicist is becoming increasingly aware that we cannot embrace given realities – like the structure of light or matter – in one form. From different sides we glimpse different aspects which cannot be traced back to each other. Only by circling round, by looking from different, apparently contrary angles can we allude to the truth, which is never visible to us in its totality.

E.Schrodinger promoted the structure of matter as "wave alone", thereby hitting on the idea of being that has no substance, but is purely actual, whose apparent “substantiality” is only from the pattern of movement from superimposed waves. This is an exciting allegory for God subsisting in a multitude of relations, which are not substances, but “waves” which form a perfect unity and fullness of being. This is already formulated for all intents and purposes in St. Augustine, when he develops the idea of the pure act–existence (particle–wave).

We know today that in a physical experiment, the observer enters into the experiment. Only by doing so can he arrive at a physical experience. This means that there is no pure objectivity in physics, and that even here, the result of the experiment (natures answer) depends on the question put to it.

He who tries to be a mere observer experiences nothing. Even the reality of God can only impinge on the vision of him who enters the faith experiment with God. Only by entering does one experience; only by cooperating in the experiment does one ask at all; …..and only he who asks shall receive.

“The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; 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.”

Robert Jastrow- Former leading NASA scientist.

It's a little slow, but science

finally seems to be catching-up to Catholicism.

Aquinas Regarding Contingency

Today is the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas, someone I like to refer to as “scary-smart”. Anyone remotely interested in the topic of existence should give him a serious look.

Theologically, God is existence itself; not some being contained within existence like a ghost, a fairy in the sky or a flying spaghetti monster. This is the elementary blunder of most atheists. When asked His name, God answers, “I am that I am” (Ex 3:14), hinting that He is “being” itself. I think of the ocean as a metaphor. We generally don’t say there is water in the ocean. We are more apt to say the ocean IS water.

I especially like Aquinas’s theory of contingency as a proof for the existence of God. With help from other theologians that explain Aquinas, I describe contingency like this: Every effect must have a cause. We cannot logically trace back causes to infinity. We can logically trace back to a first cause, sometimes called an uncaused cause. A first cause, by necessity, would need to be simultaneously whole and non-composite, meaning totally self-sufficient and having no parts. Nothing is needed for its own existence, not even time or space and nothing can be added or taken away, not even knowledge or power (or else it cannot be the first cause). From this premise flows that there can only be one first cause which must encompass all knowledge, all power, etc, etc.

I struggled with the idea that we cannot logically trace back causes to infinity. I thought to myself, “why not?” Then I read a good analogy for it in a book entitled, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Suppose you are at a deli counter to buy meat and you are told to first take a number. You are then told that you must take a number in order to take a number and this process of taking numbers to take the next will continue to infinity. You will realize that you will never reach the deli counter. You then notice that others have meat in their cart from the counter. You conclude that the processes of taking numbers must have ended at some point, at least for those with meat. It logically could not have continued to infinity as evident by the meat existing in the cart.

Here’s another way to think about contingency. Everything receives its existence from something else. You are here because your parents met. A valley exists because a river flowed there at some point. Try to imagine a universe where everything is a receiver of existence and nothing is a sender. If you showed someone from the far past a television set and explained that it receives signals and turns them into pictures and sound, the time traveler can logically conclude that there must be, somehow, a “sender” of the signal.

Modern physics now teaches that space & time do not go back to infinity, but have a certain beginning point. It’s not well advertised that the Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Roman Catholic Priest and scientist, Monsignor Georges Lemaître.

Monsignor Georges Lemaître meets with Albert Einstein

Both science and religion lead to the truth. Seems after all these centuries science is finally starting to catch-up to Catholicism…took’em long enough.

Fr Robert Spitzer on the existence of God

A few weeks ago, Ben saw Fr Robert Spitzer on EWTN and described him to me as "scary smart."  I quickly downloaded a series of his talks from the EWTN Audio archives and found that Fr Spitzer is a great example of how the Catholic faith works hand-in-hand with reason.

Reason and logic uncoupled from reality can lead to really silly conclusions, but, even worse, an antagonism to God (militant atheism) can lead you away from where the data leads and therefore away from good science.

For example, the teleological argument for the existence of God as put forth by Fr Spitzer is a fascinating story of how the values of the physical constants of the universe (the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity) are very fine-tuned to allow the universe to exist as it does (galaxies rather than black holes).  It also tells of how the resonant force within the carbon atom is just strong enough to allow Helium atoms to combine, producing a very efficient production of Carbon, the chemical element of all life.  There is a long list of such constants whose settings are not necessitated, but just happen to be values ideal for the production of our universe with our life.  A small change in any of them would be enough to complete disallow life to have developed.  As an aside, these values are not adjusted or changed over time to accommodate other settings, like a feedback loop.  They were set at the time of the Big Bang, before any interactions were made. They are truly "constant."


The probability of those constants being set to just exactly the values they are that support our universe with our life on it is on the order of 10 raised to 10 raised to the 30th power against.  If that number were written out with each zero the size of a micron, the universe would have a hard time holding just the number.


An amusing response by atheist scientists is to postulate a myriad of other universes, inaccessible to us, all of which have different combinations of those constants.  We are just lucky to be in the one that worked.  That postulate has no evidence (remember science needs data) to back it up, but since it is assumed there is no intelligence turning the dials they have to come up with a way to make that infinitesimal possibility more likely.  That's just circular logic. You can't assume there is no God and then come up with a new, unprovable theory that is based on it in order to show there is no God.  These are the lengths they will go to in order to deny the reasonable conclusion.


It is, in my opinion, disingenuous science to say "you have no evidence for God that we can see, yet we will assume a myriad of unseeable, unknowable universes to allow us to not accept a God."


This is merely a snip of ONE of Fr Spitzer's "New Arguments for the Existence of God."


Scary smart indeed.