Does Physics Lead to God?

Dr. Bruce Gordon, associated with the Discovery Institute (which promotes Intelligent Design) published an interesting article entitled "Divine Action and the World of Science: What Cosmology and Physics Teach Us about the Role of Providence in Nature."

In an earlier article Dr. Gordon criticized young-earth creationism (YEC). He maintained that it was scientifically falsified, and, accordingly, presented an embarrassing obstacle to Christian faith. Instead, he advocated, the truth of Christianity should be given a "credible intellectual defense" in the modern world, "recognizing the full intellectual power of modern science and historical scholarship".

His present article is presumably part of that intellectual quest.

Scientific Proof for a Beginning?
Dr. Gordon argues that Big Bang cosmology is well-confirmed, justifiably believed, and points to a moment of creation, 13.7 billion years ago, when our universe--even spacetime itself--came into existence from nothing. This implies a transcendent Creator (p.252). 

For proof of a beginning of our universe Dr. Gordon refers to the (late 1960's) singularity theorems of Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking. However, these proofs assume general relativistic big bang cosmology under certain conditions. One can construct general relativistic cosmologies where the theorems do not apply. Further, general relativity no longer functions at high densities, when some form of quantum gravity must be used. Dr. Gordon acknowledges that we do not yet have a consistent quantum theory of gravity (p.254), so that at high densities the pertinent physics becomes highly speculative. That being the case, we cannot rule out the possibility that the present expansion was preceded by a previous contraction, so that there never was a past singularity. Indeed, it is not even certain that the observed galactic red-shifts should be interpreted as indicating expansion, although that is the current majority view.

In short, Dr. Gordon fails to provide definitive scientific proof for the beginning of our universe a finite time past.

Does Matter Exist?

As to quantum theory, Dr. Gordon contends that it is incompatible with the existence of material substances. Rather, it is best explained by an occasionalist idealism of the sort advocated by the Christian philosophers George Berkeley (1685-1753) and Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). Dr. Gordon asserts (p.297), 

On this view, then, what we take to be material objects are mere phenomenological structures that we are caused to perceive by God and which have no non-mental reality. They exist and are given being in the mind of God, who creates them, and they are perceived by our minds as God “speaks” their reality to us. What we perceive as causal activity in nature is always and only God communicating to us—as immaterial substantial minds whose bodies are also phenomenological constructs—the appropriate formally structured qualitative sensory perceptions.

Thus only minds and perceptions exist. It should be noted that Dr. Gordon does want to leave room for other free (mental) agents. Thus he defines occasionalism so that "God is the sole efficient cause of every state of affairs in the universe that is not subject to the influence of freely acting creatures."

Implications of Idealism
What are we to make of this?

Clearly, Dr. Gordon's idealism does have a number of advantages. It stresses the need for God not just to create the world (or at least our perceptions of it), but also to providentially sustain it from one instant to the next. It stresses also the immanent nearness of God, who is the direct cause of all we perceive. Further, since there is no matter, nor any inherent physical laws, it leaves ample room for miracles, which are simply irregular manifestations of God's actions. It certainly is an improvement on materialism, which has no place for mind nor miracles.

On the other hand, if Dr. Gordon's idealism is true, then stars do not really exist, not even their light that seems to hit our eyes (which also have no physical existence). Then the physical universe is huge illusion, like a computer simulation, and our lives are like a virtual reality game, played within the matrix of God's mind.

It is not at all clear to me how this fits in with Biblical revelation. Is the Bible just another empirical perception? Can the Bible convey propositional truth to us? If so, the Bible certainly seems to speak of a material creation, with real mountains, trees, animals, human bodies; the incarnation of Jesus involves a real physical body, etc. Dualistic views that include both matter and mind seem to accord much better with Biblical teaching.

Realism or Idealism?

Moreover, Dr. Gordon seems to be contradicting himself. The first part of Dr. Gordon's essay presumes scientific realism, the assumption that the entities described by scientific theory (e.g., atoms, stars, black holes, gravitational fields, etc.) exist objectively and mind-independently. Yet the idealism with which he ends up denies the existence of any non-mental reality. This is more in tune with a non-realist view of science, such as instrumentalism, which views theories merely as useful fictions enabling us to make useful predictions of future phenomena.

In particular, Gordon's idealism entails that Big Bang cosmology, with its13.7 billion year age of the universe, has no actual non-mental existence. Such reasoning seems to defuse his earlier scientific case against Young Earth Creationism.

Conclusion
Dr. Gordon ends his article,

In summary, not only is divine action detectable in the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of its initial conditions, regularities, and constants, quantum physics reveals it to be necessary for the causal integrity and phenomenological coherence of the universe from moment to moment. Fundamental physical theory does not just reveal the mind of God to us, it reveals to us that we live in the mind of God...(p.298)

Are these far-reaching conclusions warranted?

It seems to me that Dr. Gordon places too much confidence in mainstream cosmology, much of which is highly speculative (e.g., inflation, dark matter, dark energy). Further, he takes insufficient account of the fact that our worldview largely controls how we interpret data, and how we choose theories. Since big bang cosmology contradicts Biblical teaching, Dr. Gordon's commitment to big bang cosmology subverts Biblical authority, and thus undermines the Christian faith he purports to defend.

It would therefore have been more prudent to avoid any actual commitment to mainstream (i.e., naturalist) science. One could simply argue that mainstream science leads to an apparent origin of the universe, an apparent fine-tuning of the universe for life, and a denial of the existence of matter, all of which have no plausible naturalist explanations. Hence naturalist science itself challenges naturalism.

Of course, a committed naturalist could well deny this conclusion, and embrace a beginningless cosmology, opt for an interpretation of quantum theory that retains real matter, argue that our scientific understanding is still incomplete, etc.

The proper Christian response to the deficiencies of naturalist science is to promote an authentic Christian epistemology that gives full weight to the Bible as the inerrant, authoritative word of God. This should encourage Christians to develop alternative scientific theories that interpret our perceptions of the physical world in the light of Scripture, rather than naturalism.

*****