Science in Christian Perspective
The Trauma of the Infinite Universe
OWEN GINGERICH
Smithsonian Institution
Astrophysical Observatory Cambridge, MA 02138
From: JASA 29 (June 1977): 56-58.
A few years ago there was a world-wide round of celebrations for the
500th anniversary
of Nicolaus Copernicus, and in a few years hence we will likewise commemorate
the birth of Martin Luther. It would be hard to say which of these
men most influenced
the course of Western civilization. Did the Reformation or the
Scientific Revolution
have the more profound consequences?
Because man's religious and philosophical outlook is so sharply shaped by his
view of his own place within the physical environment, I feel it is worthwhile
to examine whether Copernicus' radical cosmology has had any real impact on our
view of man himself. I am going to argue that the particular step of removing
the earth from the center of the universe and flinging it into motion was not
so important as a closely related concept that developed soon after,
namely, the
idea of the immensity of the universe itself.
Copernicus' book was carefully studied by the astronomers, particularly at the
Lutheran universities, and Copernicus' name was known to the students in even
comparatively elementary courses. To be sure, there was a certain
amount of religious
criticism of the new doctrine, and the topic of its "physical truth"
was treated with kid gloves. But I feel that the religious resistance
to the acceptance
of heliocentrism has generally been overemphasized; I believe that
the 16th century
astronomers honestly felt that it was a physical absurdity to hurl
this lazy sluggish
earth into motion.
In fact, one of the most interesting questions facing the historian of science
is to understand just why Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei adopted
the heliocentric
viewpoint. But when they did, they aggressively pushed for its acceptance as a
physical reality. It was then, and only then, that the Catholic Church reacted
violently (and in retrospect ill-advisedly) in trying to suppress the
new teaching.
The scriptural report of Joshua commanding the sun, not the Earth, to
stand still
was a particularly crucial issue, and both Kepler and Galileo
addressed themselves
to it. Galileo remarked that the Scriptures tell how to go to Heaven, not how
the heavens go. Kepler explained this more fully in his Epitome of Copernican
Astronomy: "For astronomy discloses the causes of natural phenomena and takes within
its purview
the investigation of optical illusions. Much loftier subjects are
treated by Holy
Writ, which employs popular speech in order to be understood."
Today the view presented by Galileo and Kepler is almost universally accepted.
With this interpretation the Church has safely assimilated the
Copernican Revolution.
We could even argue, along with Kepler, that life on a moving platform gives us
a broader vantage point from which to view the glories of Gods heavens.
The real blow to man's ego was, I think, not being displaced from the center of
the planetary system, but rather the subsequent reduction in size of
the planetary
system itself with respect to the starry universe. Copernicus himself
placed all
the stars at the same finite distance within a great shell. Only later in that
century did the Englishman Thomas Digges produce a diagram showing
the stars scattered
out at various distances toward infinity. By the end of the following century
the leading scientists recognized that the stars were in reality other suns at
great distances.
Immensity of the Universe
In our century we have become even more acutely aware of the immensity of the
universe. First came Harlow Shapley's discovery that the sun is but a
peripheral
star in our great Milky Way spiral, a mediocre member in an assemblage of 200
billion stars. Soon thereafter astronomers recognized that our own
Milky Way galaxy
is only one of billions of galaxies, which we now know stretch out to distances
exceeding 10 billion light-years. Surrounding many of these billion
billion stars
must be planets, and a sizable fraction must provide habitable
environments.
For centuries man has speculated about life elsewhere, and with the increased
understanding of molecular biology and chemical evolution, such
speculations have
reached a crescendo. Is man cosmically lonely in the vast reaches of space? Or
is he surrounded by other civilizations, by incredibly higher
intellects? Either
prospect is intimidating. Man, when he considers himself within the physical universe, is overwhelmed by his own
finiteness-a fragile
protoplasm on a small blue planet orbiting a second-rate star. That is the trauma
of space, the shock wave inadvertently set in motion by Copernicus.
There are, nevertheless, some alternative views concerning the grandeur of the
universe. Freeman Dyson, the philosopher-scientist at the Institute
for Advanced
Study has written "A naïve person looking at the cosmos has
the impression
that the whole thing is extravagantly, even irrelevantly, large." He goes
on to say that this extravagant size is our primary protection
against a variety
of catastrophies that would otherwise engulf the universe. Dyson
continues, "It
would not be surprising if it should turn out that the origin and
destiny of the
energy in the universe cannot be completely understood in isolation
from the phenomenon
of life and consciousness."
The Theology of Astrophysics
For many years astronomers have recognized that the universe is expanding and
that the galaxies are rushing away from each other at enormous velocities. If
the energy of the initial "big bang" had been less, the
universe would
long ago have reached its maximum size and would have collapsed-presumably long
before the tedious force of evolution would have brought forth mankind. On the
other hand, if the universe had blown up with more energy, according
to the noted
Dutch astronomer Jan Oort, its density would have dropped too rapidly for stars
and galaxies to form. In this great sea of amorphous gas there would
be no planets
and presumably no us. This is, I submit, remarkably teleological; I call it the
theology of astrophysics.
At the turn of the 19th century, the English natural
theologian, William Paley, wrote in his Evidences of the Existence
and Attributes
of Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature,
My opinion of astronomy has always been, that it is not the best medium through
which to prove the agency of an intelligent Creator; but that, this
being proved,
it shows, beyond all other sciences, the magnificence of his
operations. The mind
which is once convinced, it raises to sublimer views of the Deity
than any other
subject affords; but it is not so well adapted, as some other subjects are, to
the purpose of argument.
Paley continues,
After all the real subject of admiration is, that we understand so
much of astronomy
as we do. That an animal confined to the surface of one of the planets; bearing
a less proportion to it than the smallest microscopic insect does to the plant
it lives upon; that this little, busy, inquisitive creature, by the
use of senses
which were given to it for its domestic necessities, and by means of
these senses
should have been enabled to observe the whole system of worlds-all
this is wonderful,
whether we refer our admiration to the heavenly motions, or to the perspicacity
with which they have been noticed by mankind.
I think we must agree with Paley how admirable it is that we can understand so
much of the astronomical bodies, bodies so remote and so different
from the objects
immediately around us. And further, there is much going for Paley's view that
astronomy is not the
What if the meaning of the universe is to bring forth life? Could we make the universe more economically, without so many stars and galaxies, so much vastness of space? ... a purported extravagance in our universe is far from obvious.
best medium for proving the agency of an intelligent creator. Nevertheless, if
Paley were writing his book today, he would probably want to
reconsider the efficacy
of those evidences for the existence of Deity collected from the astronomical
universe.
Nuclear Structure of Beryllium
My second example concerns the nuclear structure of beryllium, carbon
and oxygen.
These nuclei can be thought of as combinations of two, three and four
alpha particles
respectively. Astronomers now believe that most all of the elements
heavier than
hydrogen and helium were synthesized in cataclysmic supernovae explosions much
earlier in the history of the universe. In other words, you and I are made of
recycled material-not just the dust of the earth, but the ashes of supernovae.
Now it happens that Be8 is not very stable, so that in the supernovae
explosion,
when two alpha particles collide, they do not stick together very
well. However,
there just happens to be a resonant state of carbon with almost
exactly the same
energy as a Be 8 plus an alpha particle, which means that although
the Be8 itself
is not very stable, there is an easy route to form stable carbon by adding the
alpha particle to the beryllium. Now it just happens that the opposite is true
with respect to oxygen. When you add an alpha particle to the carbon, there is
no resonance level in oxygen that will allow the alpha particle to stick easily
and to convert the carbon to oxygen.
I shouldn't really say, "there is no resonance level" because in fact
there is-only it just happens to be one half percent too low for the
nuclear reaction
to take place. What if that resonance level were one half percent higher? Then
virtually all carbon would have been converted to oxygen, and carbon would he
too rare to permit the development of much organic chemistry. Similarly, if the
Be8 had been stable, the helium would have quickly burned to Be8 and
perhaps stopped
there. Again, carbon would be too rare to permit the formation of any organic
compounds. In other words, we wouldn't he here! Sir Fred Hoyle, who
originally
noticed this, has admitted that nothing has shaken his atheism quite as much as
this discovery.
Essential Extravagance?
At a symposium we organized for the Copernican anniversary, the
Princeton physicist
and cosmologist John Wheeler addressed himself to the paradox of
intelligent life
on this small corner of such a vast universe. He asked, can science dare to ask
the greatest question of all? What role does life and mind play in
the structure
of the universe? Zero? Or everything? Wheeler asked us to consider a flower-a
tiny part of a giant plant-yet the entire purpose for the existence of the plant. What if the meaning of the universe is to bring forth life? Could
we make the universe more economically, without so many stars and galaxies, so
much vastness of space? Instead of 100 billion galaxies, how about making just
one? If we try, the total mass and energy of the universe would be so
small that
it would expand to a limit, stop, and collapse in just a year,
scarcely time for
any interesting history on
earth! From this point of view, Wheeler concludes, a purported extravagance in
our universe is far from obvious.
In describing the nucleochemistry I used the expression "it just happens
that . . ." four times. If indeed the meaning of the universe is life, I
should perhaps have said, "miraculously ...