Breaking News Bar
updated: 4/28/2014 9:23 AM

Science and our beliefs

Success - Article sent! close

In the late 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble established that the light we detect from galaxies is shifted toward the redder colors of the spectrum, indicating that they are moving away from us at enormous speeds. And the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are fleeing. Rewinding that expansion through mathematics -- dividing distance by speed -- indicates that something extraordinary happened about 14 billion years ago, when the entire universe was small, dense and exceedingly hot.

Scientists such as Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaitre had anticipated the big bang -- which Lemaitre described as a "Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of creation." Others theorized that such an event would have left a detectable residue of hydrogen plasma, grown cold over time. In the 1960s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson duly detected it -- finding microwave background radiation in every direction they pointed their telescope. The whole sky glows faintly at a temperature of about 3 degrees above absolute zero. Part of the static between channels on broadcast television is an echo of the big bang.

These are some of the most regularly confirmed, noncontroversial findings of modern science. Yet a recent poll found that a majority of Americans is "not too" or "not at all" confident that "the universe began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang."

Some of this skepticism, surely, reflects the inherent difficulty of imagining unimaginable scales of time and space. And some fault must lie with American scientific education, which routinely transforms the consideration of wonders into a chore and a bore. But the poll also found that confidence in the big bang declines as belief in a Supreme Being increases.

Which is not easy to explain. People influenced by the book of Genesis should feel more at home in a universe with a dramatic, cataclysmic beginning.

So why this theological resistance to scientific assertions that are intuitively consistent with Christian theological views? The polls don't settle this question, but I can hazard a guess. Many conservative Christians equate modern science with materialism -- a view conditioned by early 20th-century debates over evolution and human origins.

This approach raises two protests. First, it will eventually fail. It is a deep weakness for any theology or ideology to be wrong about the scientific nature of the universe. The children of believers are presented with a cruel and false choice: In order to accept the scientific method, they must abandon the beliefs of their community. And many will naturally choose science.

Second, this strategy is completely unnecessary. The scientific method is the proper way -- actually the only way -- to understand the physical universe. But this does not mean that the knowledge revealed by the physical sciences is the only valid type of human knowledge. There is ethical reasoning. There is also theological belief -- involving the possibility that the Creator might suspend the laws of nature in certain circumstances, such as the parting of the Red Sea or the Resurrection.

The problem comes when materialism, claiming the authority of science, denies the possibility of all other types of knowledge -- reducing human beings to a bag of chemicals and all their hopes and loves to the firing of neurons. Or when religion exceeds its bounds and declares the Earth to be 6,000 years old. In both cases, the besetting sin is the same: the arrogant exclusive claim to know reality.

2014, Washington Post Writers Group

Article Comments ()
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the X in the upper right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.