To what extent do you agree with the view that "The Big Bang Theory disproves the Biblical account of creation in Genesis"?

The “Big Bang Theory” has been constructed over many years with the discoveries and theories of many scientists. It states that the universe was created from one point, a “primeval atom” or “singularity” in the words of Lemaitre and Stephen Hawking, the force of which poured out every element and component that makes up the universe as we know it. The evidence for this comes from the fact that the universe has been demonstrated to be still expanding today. This was discovered by Hubble when he noticed that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the stars was red on the spectrum meaning that they are being stretched – “Red Shift” – and therefore the universe must be expanding.

There are three different elements to the Big Bang Theory, one states that as the universe keeps expanding there is too little matter for gravity to take affect, and therefore an open universe is created whereby it keeps expanding for infinity. The second defines that there is sufficient matter to sustain an equal universe where expansion will eventually conclude and stabilize. Finally, the third, which is our present state as modern evidence would dictate, is whereby eventually there is so much matter that the progress reverses itself and comes back to the single point, a “closed” universe. This theory is called “The Big Crunch”, meaning the universe would ultimately last forever but would pass through different phases of existence, i.e. expanding then contracting.

The issue of the theory disproving the account of creation in Genesis is wholly up to how an individual interprets the bible. For fundamentalists and “Creationists” whom read the account literally, the science behind the theory does disprove the account as for example, there are discoveries of rocks and fossils dating back millions and millions of years, completely overriding the Creationist view that the world is only fifteen thousand years old. Science can also date waves of radiation back to the first milliseconds of existence, billions of years ago, again undermining the literal belief. For many people however, Genesis and the creation story can be described as allegorical and offers an explanation with a margin of self-imagination. For example, the statement “God made the world in seven days” may not literally mean seven days, rather a period of time open to questioning.

Science however can take us to the moment of “singularity” or creation, but not beyond and this is where the idea of God truly becomes open to discussion as science has no definite answer and the thought of an actual creator is not past intellectual logic. However, the perception of God and what he actually represents is variable. Stephen Hawking’s recent theory that gravity itself is enough to “light the blue touch paper” can in a way be perceived as God himself because who is to say that the fundamental physical laws which, arguably, could be the answer to the start of creation, are not in fact the creators of the universe and thus God?

Both science and the book of Genesis define that there was nothing, and then there was something, (for example in the bible it says, “In the beginning”). From this we can infer that whatever did spark existence was spontaneous and the only thing, i.e. nothing came before it. The idea of nothing is very hard to perceive intellectually and therefore the religious idea of God as an omniscient being is, although some would say allegorical, easier to grasp than scientifically stating that there was nothing because science relies on justifiable evidence and not beliefs, which in turn do not need to be reasonable nor provide confirmation. As God cannot be proved right or wrong, taking into account different perceptions of what he may actually be/represent, I feel that the Big Bang Theory can neither prove nor disprove the account of creation in Genesis as there are many similarities between them if the latter is read allegorically yet many obvious differences with literal interpretation.

Explain how religion and science can offer contrasting answers to the question "What happened at the beginning of time?"

The question "What happened at the beginning of time" is one that has been marvelled over thoughout history both religiously and scientifically and one that has caused much conflict. Both science and religion seek an understanding of the universe in its entirity, however whilst science relies on hard fact religion uses faith, hence why conflict is inevitable.

From a religious view the belief is that God was and is the creator of the universe and, although science can describe how everything happened, religion is needed to describe the meaning of our existence. Creationism is an umbrella term for many different views, the two main branches being Young and Old Earth Creationism. Whilst Old Earth creationists accept that the bible, in particular the story of creation in Genesis 1, may be allegorical in its description of the world being created in "6 days", Young Earth creationists take the bible to be completely literal, thus why they reject scientific evaluations of the Earth's actual age. If the bible is believed to be a wholly inerrant doctrine from God then it can not be faulted, hence why Young Earth creationism is so unyeilding in its acceptance of science. Genesis 1 and 2 offer different perceptions of God and his role within the universe. Gap creationists recognise this divide and believe that the universe was created, "The Earth was shapeless and void" and then there was a "gap" whereby God intervened and the Earth began to take shape. Gap creationism therefore also recognises the flexibility of the timeframe stated in the bible and like Old Earth creationism is more willing to accept science.

Whilst these versions of creationism vary they share one common factor; namely God, and that he made the universe and everything in it from nothing.

Science has, up until recently, always been parallel with religion and accepted God. Indeed in medieval times scholars and scientists were theologians first and foremost and therefore explored science with God at the forefront of their understanding. Today there still seems no reason to completely reject the idea that God "Lit the blue touch paper" as Stephen Hawking stated. Throughout history scientists have observed the sky. The works of Aristotle up to Galileo have developed the idea of a geocentric universe into a heliocentric, revolving around the sun. Newton developed a reflecting telescope that essentially enabled the birth of all modern scientific principles such as testing and experimenting. With Hubble and Gamow's discovery of red shift, cosmic waves can be traced back to their origin - the primeval atom -showing not only the Earth's true age but also that the universe is exapnding from one point. If then we can trace back to this point we are mere milliseconds away from determining the beginning of everything. Although Stephen Hawking is the most prominent scientist to collaborate these ideas, scientist from throughout history have aided the Big Bang Theory, the idea that everything may be traced back to one spot.

The remaining question is then, what initiated the Big Bang and, though arguably just the God of the Gaps theory, God remains a possible candidate.

Whilst the idea of God starting everything cannot as of yet be disproved the contrast between religion and science is the scientific belief that the universe and everything in it was created at the same moment in time and now mattwer what ahppened next, life on earth is a form of chance. This statement completely changes the view of the relationship humans have with God as believed by religious people. The idea of chance shows possibilites of other life forms, proving humans to not be unique and undermining the idea that God had a predetermined plan.

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Hume’s challenges to miracles and consider the religious response to them.

David Hume was a philosopher at the very core of the Scottish Enlightenment in the 18th century. His views challenged the belief that religion and the existence of God are the answers to anything science can not explain, i.e. God of the Gaps. In particular he dissected the idea that miracles are the result of God’s intervention stating that a miracle is “A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent”. In simpler terms, Hume is defining a miracle as something that breaks a natural law because of the intervention of an exterior influence, not necessarily God.

Hume created three main arguments that challenged the existence of miracles. The first focuses on the opinion that there has never been “…in all history any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men of such unquestioned good- sense, education and earning” to be relied upon to give a valid account. In biblical terms this seems to be a fair point, for example Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead after four days in front of a crowd of people in Bethany; whilst this can not be proved or disproved the people within that crowd would have been farmers or fishermen, uneducated and illiterate and Hume’s point is that this is how miracles are accounted for in the majority of the bible, in front of a large but seemingly unreliable witness. Thus, Hume wondered why miracles never seemed to occur in the presence of well-educated men such as himself. If even the most highly respected and educated men of the time had been ignorant only a hundred years before the revolution of science does it not then seem logical to state that humble peasants thousands of years ago can not be a reliable source? However, religion does not require logic and it can be argued that intelligence does not determine reliability. It is true that in most cases in the bible miracles were performed in front of a crowd and therefore the quantity should overrule the quality of the source. The resurrection of Jesus is the foundation of Christianity, a religion that millions of people believe, regardless of their intelligence or status. How then can Hume state that the witnesses are “insufficient”, whilst it is true that Christians were not actually present at the resurrection of Jesus the fact remains that millions have the faith to believe in them and who is to say that the “invisible agent” is not God?

“The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events from which it is derived”. This quote presents the idea that if people believe in miracles then whenever a wondrous thing happens they will automatically refer to it as a miracle because they want to believe it is. If a woman who has been told she can never have a baby then conceives, many would view this as a miracle, getting caught up in the emotion but forgetting the factors that may have caused it; there is an element of human error involved as well as the biological aspect that is completely unpredictable. Thus, while highly unlikely there is always still a chance. However, Hume’s statement is hypocritical as you could say that he is being unsympathetic towards miracles and by not believing in them is being biased himself. An example that disproves Hume’s idea is that of St Paul who converted to Christianity after Jesus performed a miracle. Surely this is a credible source as this miracle convinced him enough to become possibly the most prominent follower of Jesus.

Hume also believes that, much like the witnesses, the countries in which these miracles supposedly occur are “abound among ignorant and barbarous nations”. It is true that miracles tend to happen in rural areas of far humbler surroundings than the city of Edinburgh at the time. However what is to say that God intervened there as those people were in more need of a miracle than those who are privileged? The context of the time is important also in this case as Hume worked during the enlightenment, the name itself gives away the analogy that everything beforehand had been thwarted by darkness and ignorance. Within this Hume shows his own ignorance in that, compared to himself and the educated environment he is used to of course every other nation is going to be far more ignorant, the majority of people I his time were still workers and did not have the opportunities he did. Religion for many gave them something to live for and how does Hume have the right to question it? After all billions of people believe in miracles whilst few shared his view and thus he seemed the ignorant minority at the time.

His final challenge is in that of opposing religions and how that although miracles are present in all religions neither one can accept a miracle from another as it would disprove their own. “Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions…as its direct scope to establish the particular system to which it is attributed, so it has the same forces…to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system was established”. Whilst Hume thought that as not all of these religions can be right they must all be wrong there is surely more evidence to prove miracles as each religion seems to have examples, for example Jews believe Moses led them across the Red Sea because they were the chosen ones, and so regardless of the faith miracles seem to exist.

Whilst many of Hume’s arguments are close-minded to anything other than the educated world he lives in I believe his most valid point is that of wanting miracles to be true and thus fabricating them from positive and unpredicted events. This idea can be applied to any religion and poses the question over whether miracles really are the intervention of God or just what we perceive them to be. There seems no reason however to not incorporate both Hume’s ideas and religion as there is no proof that one who prays for a miracle and then receives it has not witnessed the intervention of God as much as a person who does not believe in miracles and then is saved from death quite inexplicably has not played a part in a miracle of pure luck/chance.

Miracles

What is a miracle?
The concept of the miraculous has captured the imagination of even non-religious believers and has become a synonym for a surprising and seemingly lucky event. Religious believers on the other hand find a deeper significance, using the miraculous to provide evidence for the existence of God and his continuous involvement within the universe and the relationship he shares with humans.

David Hume defines miracles as

"A transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

Richard Swinburne offers examples of such violations of natural law from evidence in the bible;
- "Resurrection from the dead"
- "Water turning into wine"
- "[A] man getting better from polio in a minute"

Whilst science may offer explanations for all such events Swinburne argues that it is the timescale and instantaneous spontaneity of the event that makes it a miracle. He does however also cliam that for an event to be miraculous it has to hold some religious significance rather than "Upset[ting] a child's toy box" which would indeed fit with Hume's definition of a miracle but would indeed have no significance or portray the nature of God as all powerful and all loving.

What do miracles tell us about God?
The view that God intervenes in the world is in keeping the the THEISTIC understanding of an IMMANENT God, one who is constantly involved.

Aquinas determined 3 different types of interaction that an immanent God would provide;
1. SUSTAINER - The continuation of Earth relying on God's intervention.
2. PRIMARY ACTIONS - i.e. Miracles, an interaction that changes a course.
3. SECONDARY ACTIONS - Refers to how God maintains his "will" within us.

It is worth pointing out that miracles are VIOLATIONS OF NATURE. God's intervention is therefore a violation of his own laws to bring about his will which suggests that he has not created a predetermined plan and therefore arguably may not be the one who determined everything in the first place! This poses a question susceptible to much debate:

Does God Violate Natural Laws?
There are religious, scientific and philisophical challenges to the belief that God violates natural laws which include:

1. Doubt as to the existence of natural laws.
We may only accept miracles, violations of natural laws, if we have fully accepted the existence of natural laws. In scientific terms a natural law is something that cannot be broken, for example; gravity is a force that cannot be surpassed on Earth. Scientific understanding may merely describe the behaviour of nature and cannot control or dictate it. In religious terms natural law is a theory created by Thomas Aquinas and that has been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, stating that all that is natural is good as God created it and we should live according to nature’s intentions.

- THEISTS may not accept this definition of miracles as a violation, as they believe that God intervenes in everything "As present in the not miraculous as he is in the miraculous." (Brian Davies) If he is equally present then Hume's definition of "A volition of the Deity" would make everything a miracle as God has intervened in everything. However, some theists would say that it is THROUGH natural lwas that God sustains and in expcetion circumstances may choose to interrupt such laws, which is more in keeping with Hume's definition.

2.Arguments against miracles.
- The definition of natural law prevents anything being deemed as a miracle as it is based on a priori knowledge, "a generalisation" as John Hicks stated that after a posteriori knowledge of a certain previously unwitnessed event should then widen our understanding of natural laws, not be descrived as a violation. SOMETHING CAN NOT BREAK A LAW WHEN THE LAW IS BASED ON EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE.

- The God of the Gaps theory, continuing from John Hicks' argument. As our understanding is continually developing there may be a time when science can answer all the question and therefore remove the label of "violation" of our understanding as instead of conflicting, events such as "miracles" will be encompassed within our understanding. This somewhat makes miracles and indeed religion redundant as the God of the Gaps theory states that religious believers use gaps in scientific knowledge to plant ideas of God's existence. When this gap leaves will there then be no place for God? This theory undermines the concept of faith however and as faith requires no evidence may not be valid.

- The placebo effect. Doctors are becoming more and more aware of the sheer power of the human mind and how it can bring physical improvements i.e. recovering from an illness quickly, when there is sufficient faith and expectation for the event to happen - in the same way that a placebo drug may be used to fool the mind in to thinking recovery is possible. Whilst religious believers would argue that God was merely answering people's prayers scientists would say that the event is not miraculous but rather a feat of the person's own mind/a biological anomalie and therefore down to pure chance.

- Quantumn mechanics remains an unanswered question bit one that could in turn provide answers for strange and apparent "violations" of natural law as mere random unpredictability. However QM, although the building blocks of life, may arguable be irrelevant to miracles.

3. Hume's critique. - See essay below

4. Beliefs that God is TRANSCENDANT not IMMANENT.
- Maurice Wiles, the belied that God performs miracles that violate natural law goes against our understanding of God's relationship with the world. He believes that the world is a SINGLE act of God, whom does not interfere on an individual basis = DEISM

- Nelson Pike state sthat it is not POSSIBLE for God to intervene as God is transcendent from time and therefore has not past, present or future and may be unable to act at a certain point. Some would say Pike has misunderstood the nature of timelessness as though time does not affect God (as stated by Swinburne) this does not affect his ability to act within it or indeed to be omniscient as all knowledge requires logic not prediction of the future.

- Problem of EVIL. Some say God can not interfere in the world at all as this would undermine the free will he gave us that allowed us to choose a life worshipping him or a life of evil. Miracles would compromise such free will. Furthermore why would God only intervent in certain circumstances and not in others e.g. saving the Israelites from Egypt but not the Jews from the Holocaust. After all the Israelites were the JEws ancestors - why should they be saved and not them? Wiles concludes therefore that God does not intervene at all as he does not wish to choose.

Explain how the development of quantum mechanics has changed the way some scientists view reality:

Quantum mechanics is the study of both matter and energy at a microscopic level. It observes how the physical laws which apply to macroscopic objects do not apply to those at a subatomic level, as shown by their unusual behaviour. This behaviour has opened a gateway for the questioning of all such laws that previously had been confirmed and acted as a stabiliser for understanding the concept of reality, the universe as a whole and our place within it. Such development therefore has completely distorted this preconceived view of reality and the following explores in what ways and how quantum mechanics has done this.

The physical laws which remain the foundations of our very existence were first discovered by Isaac Newton whom, as a Christian, was determined to find order and purpose in the universe to fulfill the arguments design qua purpose and design qua regularity which are the classical argument for God’s existence as creator. Newton used gravity and the idea of motion to propose laws, which all bodies obeyed in every circumstance – making it possible to predict behaviour. Whilst Newton maintained that these proved the existence of God, other scientists felt that he had unlocked the key to understanding the entirety of the universe, providing science with the tools to fill in the gaps religion relied upon. However upon the development of quantum mechanics in the following century such ideas were lost and science went from being understood and predictable to being filled with uncertainty.

Such uncertainty occurred over the ideas of waves and particles. Every object at every level - be it micro or macroscopic, was thought to behave in one of two ways. For example, Newton believed that light was made up of a continuous stream of particles called photons. Whilst this is partly true Thomas Young expressed that it seemed to behave in a wave-like motion and so light proved under experimentation to function as both a wave and a particle; wave-particle duality. Furthermore in 1922 Louis de Broglie extended this duality to matter in an experiment whereby he confirmed that a beam of electrons, matter made of particles, diffracted as a wave under particular conditions. However, whilst it has been shown that both energy and matter can act as both wave and particle they can never be both at the same time. An alternative experiment which portrays this is the double-split experiment which in essence forces the electron to behave as either wave or particle as it can not pass the slit as both. When left unobserved the electrons diffracted as a wave, however upon observation they returned to behaving as a particle. Why then does the introduction of an observer determine the results? Scientists remain perplexed even today as they enter from knowledge and understanding into faith, being forced to acknowledge quantum mechanics whilst it transcends all human understanding.

Erwin Schrödinger embraced such scientific and logical contradiction and embodied it within his paradoxical mind experiment commonly known as “Schrödinger’s Cat”. The experiment defines a cat, which has been placed in a potentially lethal box, both dead and alive simultaneously where we, the observer, cannot know its fate. Whilst highlighting the semi-farcical nature of quantum mechanics this paradox of superposition emphasises science’s lack of understanding of the universe as a whole and provides a platform for even the most mind-blowing interpretations to become viable theories. The principle of Ockham’s Razor, whereby the simplest explanation is the most probable, seems now redundant and no longer in keeping with modern day science as physicists and theologians look to the unimaginable in search of comprehension.

An example of such extraordinary interpretations is that of Hugh Everett’s “many-worlds”. The idea uses the concept of superposition, the absence of an observer means an object remains in all possible states, to propose that at every point in life where there is a viable choice to be made an alternative or parallel universe is born out of all the possibilities of that choice. For example if someone were stood at a crossroad and decided to turn left, whilst they are only conscious of the universe in which they turned left, Everett suggests that there are universes in which the same person turned right or went straight on and which develop independently. Such a proposition allures thoughts of infinite universes and infinite “versions” of every human being and though this remains completely unthinkable the fact that celebrated scientists and the greatest minds on the planet give time, and even preference in the case of Stephen Hawking, to thinking of its possibility shows the distance science has come from the rigidity of Newton’s laws and the simplistic ideology of Ockham’s razor.

It seems that quantum mechanics has completely overturned science and led it to an uncomfortable state of uncertainty. Though defined by its need for evidence and conclusions, in the absence of both, science throws its hand out desperately to the complex and the unimaginable – relying on faith and belief to answer a question knowledge alone can not. In doing so quantum mechanics has changed the way many view reality – no longer are things clear and structured but rather undefined and whilst the distance between religion and science was thought to be greater than ever, quantum mechanics seems almost to intertwine them with the key principle of faith.
Bethany Stuart 12DH

Bibliography:
- AQA Religious Studies: Philosophy of Religion pg 122 - 127