Catholica Commentary by Fr Peter Dresser: God is Big .... Real BIG! (Chapter 8: The God of Our Universe Part 1)

"God is Big ..... Real BIG!" by Fr Peter Dresser (Chapter Eight - Part 1)

If you have been enjoying this series of essays by Fr Peter Dresser today's excerpt from his book will more than probably have special appeal. He sub-titled his book A Theology for the Third Millennium and in this new chapter we start today he really begins to explore how this theology might look in comparison with any old theologies we might have been brought up on. In many ways what Peter Dresser writes might also be reflected on in the light of the lengthy series we ran from Tom McMahon on Catholica looking at the meaning of Sacrament in an Age of Technology [LINK]. What Peter Dresser explores is the meaning of Theology in an Age of Science and Technology.

Chapter Eight (Part 1): The God of Our Universe

Facing up to scientific reality...

Paul Davies is a recipient of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion and was awarded this tribute in 1994. He remains a scientist but has a yearning to discover the presence of God in all that is in the universe. He disdains an unreasonable belief in a Santa Claus kind of God which he suggests is a sure recipe for religion to earn contempt. He asserts also that to make any progress in our search for God we ought give up naive images of a cosmic-magician or guardian angel in the sky and face up to scientific reality. In a quote referred to earlier he states that "if there is a future for God in the third millennium, it can only be by our taking account of the scientific world view, not by fleeing from it."[59]

He notes moreover that the question facing scientists is that in order to be a scientist one has to believe that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible manner. And then of course the question arises of where the lawlike order in nature comes from. He continues that "atheists wriggle uncomfortably at this point. Having insisted that everything in the world can be explained rationally in terms of natural laws, when it comes to the origin of the laws themselves a mental backflip is performed: the system of laws must simply be accepted as a brute fact. The laws exist reasonlessly, they say. So at rock bottom, the universe is absurd."[60] But the fact is that even if some of the laws that govern biology or anything else were even a teeny bit different to what they are, it is doubtful whether life of any sort would have been possible. So where did the laws come from? And this seems to be the point at which Paul Davies would accept the existence of god but with a small "g". This is something that he refers to in his book The Big Questions.

In his conversation with Phillip Adams he makes the following observations in relation to the existence of God:

"The Big Questions" Dr Paul Davies in conversation with Philip Adams

Paul Davies' book is out of print and only available secondhand. More information about Paul Davies is available on Wikipedia.

"There are really two sorts of gods that have been around for some time. We might crudely say that one of these — the personal god — is the god concerned with human behaviour, morality, preservation of life after death. This is a guardian-angel type of god. I would love to believe there is such a being, but I find it very difficult to do so. Then we've got the other sort of god; much more remote, much more powerful — in a sense much more awesome. This is God the great architect of the cosmos, an abstract, timeless being that is somehow responsible for the overall organisation and structure and lawfulness of the universe.

Most of the world's religions try to merge these two characteristics — God the creator of the grand scheme, and the personal god. And they have a lot of difficulty! Christianity had to adopt a Trinity — to have three gods — before it could really sort out all the required qualities. Whilst I'd love to believe in a guardian-angel personal god, I find it very difficult to do so. However, when it comes to this — and I hesitate to even use the word god — this felicitous, pleasing, harmonious, almost contrived, and especially ingenious nature of the lawfulness of the cosmos (it is the ingenuity that I find most inspiriting) then, to me, that cries out for something like 'meaning' or 'purpose'. I realise both of those words are loaded, and we have to use them very carefully, but something like meaning or purpose, or at least rationality, surely lies behind it all."[61]

Davies then goes on to say that the closest analogy that he can get to regarding this timeless, abstract being is mathematics. He would claim that this god which for all intents is a kind of mathematical infrastructure comes rather close to the conception that many modern Christian theologians have — but a long way from the concept of god that comes across from the pulpit on a Sunday.[62] I personally am not familiar with too many contemporary Christian theologians who would see god in quite the same terms as does Davies. However there are certainly many who would share his scientific thinking about God.

In conclusion Davies touches on a beautiful convergence between science and theology:

"…we are beginning to tease out a much more sophisticated notion of meaning or purpose here — not a linear chain of causation or explanation, but more of a holistic interconnectedness (logical, not physical interconnectedness). Science deals with the physical world, but supposes that this physical world is underpinned by an abstract logical and mathematical world, wherein resides the rational basis of existence. It is the latter domain that the theoretical physicist explores, and it is there, in my view, that we find the most fruitful interplay of scientific and theological concepts. So when I use the word god, which I do reluctantly, I mean something like 'that which underpins or guarantees this mathematical law-like order in nature'. It's the thing that interweaves and underpins and guarantees it all."[63]

Can we marry the cosmic god with a personal god?

As a theologian trying to find some convergence with science and particularly the god that Paul Davies refers to, "the thing that interweaves and underpins and guarantees it all", I resort initially to the idea of a pervading principle which I would like to call the principle of the universe, a kind of universal soul if you like. My question is whether or not it is possible for us to have a conscious relationship with this principle? So close indeed that it becomes a personal relationship? Can we marry the cosmic god with a personal god? Can we actually combine both? Can we say that this cosmic God is the God of Jesus?

Over the years the underlying principles of mathematics as the basis for the "creation" of the world have frequently been put forward for consideration and not only by contemporary mathematicians/scientists such as Paul Davies. For example in the 18th Century Roger Boscovitch was one of many to explore a mathematical theory of everything.[64] The combination of God and physics is appealing to many people and contemporary physicists such as Stephen Hawking, Leon Lederman and George Smoot are keen to draw a rapprochement between science and religion. Indeed it does seem that in many ways science and not religion has provided so many good things that have assisted and aided people — television, cars, penicillin and so on. In fact as early as the seventeenth century science was touted as an indispensable aid to Christian salvation. Francis Bacon (1561-1626) stated that through science humanity could win back the state of grace — and the accompanying power — it had possessed in the Garden before the Fall. Science could make us more Edenic.[65] But just dealing with science as science, it is difficult to get to a relationship with a personal God, the God of, say, Jesus. Such a relationship may have its beginnings in the world of experience, and within the context of poetry and art — and certainly within the context of the mystery and awesomeness and wonder that our universe provides. But we have to be open to experience. We have to be open to such a relationship. We have to be friends with this cosmic God.

Here's an interesting photo of Paul Davies in The Missourian where he is proposing that we send some volunteers on a one-way trip to Mars in much the same way as many of the first settlers from Europe took a one-way trip to the other side of the earth with little expectation of returning to their original homes. You'll find the article HERE.

I must say that I feel a need within myself to become united with, to become one with what I can only refer to as the life surge of the universe — and so, in a special way, share in the direction of the universe. This remains a matter for a later discussion. For the time being, however, this is not a matter of taking god from the cosmic into the personal realm but rather of taking myself into the cosmos where god has its rational existence. If this god of Paul Davies exists, then it is not merely abstract but like mathematics itself, must impinge on our entire universe and ultimately on us, the children of the universe.

I rather enjoy Davies' distinction between what he sees as a necessary god and a contingent god. His necessary god is the meaningful existence, a timeless existence, of something that gives rise to the laws of mathematics and science. Some kind of primordial being that can be uncovered to some extent at least by looking at the scientific world/universe scene. As we have seen, Davies accepts the existence of the necessary god. The contingent god is the guardian angel type of god, the Christian God for example, who listens to and accepts petitionary prayer and so on. At this point as we have seen, Davies parts company with traditional religion. Such a god does violence to his scientific intelligence.

It must be a continual search, surely in our contemporary world, to find some marriage or convergence between theology and science. After all science developed historically from theology in an attempt to explain and define the nature of things. But as we have seen, God surely transcends that which is empirically knowable. Music, art and love are experienced but not scientifically provable. So is a personal God something in this category? Perhaps this so-called contingent God must forever remain a god of our experience and an experience that we, like Jesus, would want to share. Was Jesus, for example, experiencing Davies' necessary god or his contingent god? Was Jesus in some way personalising this necessary god? If so, why? Perhaps to discover in the beauty of the world some kind of divine ordering, or maybe finding the Divine in the beauty of the world?

For Paul Davies and for many other scientists the god that he has come to believe in and the universe that that god sustains is more extraordinary and more inspiring and more believable than dogma and mythology and fairly tales and indeed some kind of angel-guardian god. Somebody once said about miracles that miracles were explainable; it was the explanations that were miraculous. The necessary god of Davies seems far more awesome and inspiring and wonderful than any contingent god. The contingent god of Davies may be capable of some kind of logical explanation. His necessary god is truly miraculous. Traditional Christian theology has always had it the other way around! God was present in the theology but not in the science. It could be appropriate and more meaningful for us living in this increasingly technological and scientific age to rethink this situation; it is important that we theologise as far as possible using scientific parameters. If we can approach our God through the wonders of the cosmos as well as through the wonders of Scriptures and revelation, then our God will become more awesome and more magnificent than ever before. It is necessary that theologians work in conjunction with and not in opposition to the scientific world in order to bring about a more wholesome and satisfying appreciation and experience of God.

NEXT WEEK: Chapter Eight Part 2: "The God of Our Universe"

“IIf we can approach our God through the wonders of the cosmos as well as through the wonders of Scriptures and revelation, then our God will become more awesome and more magnificent than ever before. It is necessary that theologians work in conjunction with and not in opposition to the scientific world in order to bring about a more wholesome and satisfying appreciation and experience of God.” ...Peter Dresser

FOOTNOTES:
[59] Paul Davies, "The Future of God" in The Sydney Morning Herald, 21st December 1996.
[60] Ibid
[61] Paul Davies, The Big Questions, Penguin Books Australia, 1996, p.144-145.
[62] Ibid p.147-148.
[63] Ibid p.150.
[64] Margaret Wertheim, Pythagoras' Trousers, Fourth Estate, London, 1997, p.204.
[65] Ibid. p.154.

IMAGE CREDITS:
Clicking on the images in the body of this article will take you to the original source and further information.

Peter Dresser grew up in Orange NSW. On completing his Leaving Certificate he studied for some years at Springwood and Manly Seminaries. His life journey has led him down diverse paths and he enjoyed the experience of many and varied employments including postman, public servant and factory worker. He has appreciated his exposure to different life styles and religions and his involvement with music and sport, particularly Rugby League. He eventually turned to teaching where he found an easy rapport with and respect for young people. Peter decided to continue with his studies for Priesthood and entered St. Paul’s Seminary. He was ordained in 1990. Peter's love for his Catholic religion dates from his very early years. His involvement with Science is only a recent phenomenon. His fascination with nature has always been predominant. His continuing pastoral concern is that the Good News proclaimed by Jesus be preached and mediated meaningfully in all its richness and fullness to the contemporary world. Peter holds degrees in Arts and Theology and a Diploma in Education. He produced this document in 2004 whilst Parish Priest of Kandos in Central West NSW. He now lives privately in retirement at Kandos where he spent six memorable years.

What are your thoughts on this commentary?
You can contribute to the discussion in our forum.

Share |

[Index of Commentaries by Fr Peter Dresser]

Catholica
34 Martin Place, LINDEN NSW 2778, Australia
editor: Brian Coyne | tel: +612 4753 1226
email: editor@catholica.com.au