This is an exceedingly strange develop- ment, unexpected by all but the Books theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning Jastrow and God created heaven and earth. [p. 115] [The scientist] has scaled the mountains of ignorance. He is about to conquer the Genesis highest peak: as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. [p. 116]

In these passages and others like them, the message is conveyed that modern science David A. Conway plainly "leads to" the biblical account of creation, to the view of the theologians: "In God and the Astronomers, by Robert Jastrow spokesmen for the discipline that gave us an the beginning God created heaven and (New York: Warner, 1980), 173 pages, paper, unimaginable cosmos, humankind descen- earth." As Lance Morrow, author of a Time $4.95. ding from inert material, and a "Essay" (February 5, 1979) puts it, Jastrow mechanistically operating Nature — if such is telling us that "the Bible was right after all specialists as these report that their findings and ... scientists and agnostics ... now find When theologians or ministers give indicate that God exists, then we must take themselves confounded." arguments that support religious belief, we notice. It is as though the FBI announced hardly find it noteworthy. Even if their that it had reluctantly concluded that there reasoning is clever, no one seems to care were no foreign spies in the United States or much and they are seldom given a hearing in as though the president of NORMAL stated the popular media. Probably this is because that he now had unequivocal evidence that the apologists appear to be doing only what the occasional use of marijuana causes they are supposed to do. After all, it is their serious and irreversible brain damage. If job to defend religious belief. Their more even science dictates that God exists, then sophisticated arguments may appear in what more can the skeptic require? professional theological journals; the Since public statements by scientists are simpler ones are printed up in religious likely to be regarded as authoritative, the tracts. The New York Times and the scientist has special responsibilities when Reader's Digest are unlikely to pay atten- speaking to society about science. And if he tion, and the public neither knows nor cares is speaking in favor of religion, when his what has been said. words are likely to be taken as even more The basic astronomical story that Jastrow Yet when a scientist says that there are authoritative than usual, the responsibilities tells is, for the most part, the familiar one. It scientific arguments that support religion, should be taken particularly seriously. briefly recounts the work of Slipher, Hub- the popular press takes notice and people Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, author of ble, Friedmann, Einstein, and others, which listen with respect. It is not hard to under- God and the Astronomers,' is a recent ex- led to the recognition that the universe is ex- stand why. The scientist is regarded as a ample of the scientist writing in support of panding. It takes account of the fact that un- genuine authority, an expert in esoteric traditional religious beliefs. Unfortunately, til recently the steady-state theory was a matters that are quite unintelligible to the he is also a vivid example of a scientist fail- viable alternative to the big-bang view but layperson. Further, the scientist is regarded ing to live up to the responsibilities imposed that Pensias's and Wilson's 1965 discovery as expert in matters of "hard fact." The by his role as a scientific authority. of background radiation led to the demise of scientist's knowledge is seen as dem- the former, leaving the big-bang view onstrably correct, else how could polio II without any widely held competitor. Such an have been eliminated and men have been Jastrow's book actually does not contain a account of the current status of the big-bang landed on the moon? Thus, the scien- single straightforward, unequivocal thesis. theory and the reasons for its acceptance is tist, speaking as a scientist, can be a power- But, through a series of assertions, pretty much the standard one. ful authority on any topic. qualifications, suggestions, implications, According to the theory, the big bang oc- The degree of authority is even greater and insinuations, one overwhelmingly domi- curred some twenty billion years ago. At when the scientist is speaking in favor of nant impression is left. It is that evidence for that instant, the density of the matter was in- religion. For in this area the scientist is the currently accepted big-bang theory, which finite, as was its temperature. The size is un- regarded as a sort of hostile witness. explains the expansion of the universe, known. The result of the explosion was the Unemotional, purely rational scientists, means that: forming of the expanding universe as it is ... the astronomical evidence leads to a conceived of today in physical cosmology. biblical view of the origin of the world. The Physics tells an amazingly detailed story David A. Conway is associate pro%ssor and details differ, but the essential elements in of how the universe came to be in its present chairperson of the Department of Philosophy the astronomical and biblical accounts of state. The story ranges from particle forma- at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. His Genesis are the same. [p. 14] tion in the first millisecond, through the publications include articles on philosophy Or, in other formulations: beginning of galaxy formation after one to of religion and social philosophy. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in two billion years, to the formation of the the moment of creation. first stars after four billion years, and so on

32 Dtagakilagr to the formation of the planets, including the must mean something less, so that perhaps (Within the universe, each event has a cause; earth, after more than fifteen billion years what he is saying is only that there is scien- therefore, the event described as the origin (that is, some 4.6 billion years ago). On tific evidence for a beginning and a creator, of the universe must have a cause. Compare earth, the biological history includes or even more modestly, merely for a begin- this with: Each part of the machine is con- microscopic life-forms appearing some three ning. nected to another part of the machine; billion years ago, mammals fifty million With this we have what could be called the therefore, the machine is connected to a part years ago, and Homo sapiens two million "Humpty Dumpty defense" of Jastrow. of the machine.) years ago.' Homo sapiens now inhabit a Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty tells Alice, It does not matter here what the answers planet revolving around one star in a galaxy "When I use a word ... it means just what I to these and other questions of a similar of 10" (100 billion) stars in a universe of un- choose it to mean—neither more nor less." nature may be. What matters is that they are countable billions of galaxies. Alice is unsure that he can do that, and, of philosophical questions about a The biblical account is not quite the same. course, he cannot. He can use words, and he philosophical, not a scientific, argument for "The heavens and the earth," complete with can mean what he likes. But the words a first cause. In various particular forms, the man and woman, were created by God in six themselves retain their genuine meaning, argument and the questions have been dis- days. The biblical writers conceived of the and his listeners will understand that mean- cussed by Aristotle and Aquinas, by earth as a finite, flat surface supported by ing, not Humpty Dumpty's private one. Descartes, Hume, and Kant, by contem- waters. Above this surface hovered the sun, And so to use the Humpty Dumpty porary Thomists and skeptics. The issues moon, and stars. And above those there was defense in Jastrow's behalf really is to de- are neither uninteresting nor unimportant, another area of water separated from the fend him by claiming that he does not mean but the basic argument is philosophical and, sky by the firmament. The whole structure what he says. What he says is plainly false, as an argument of its kind, on balance not was supported by gigantic pillars.' Neither but that is not what he means to say. For he very convincing. mankind nor the structure of the universe is using words in "private" ways. But now Thus, it is simply wrong to make it appear "evolved" or would evolve from its created there is a more serious charge than that it is obvious that "a beginning" implies nature. The creation took place, if it can be falsehood. He is using words in ways that a first cause, and it is doubly wrong to pre- dated from biblical sources, some six thou- can only mislead his readers, readers who sent this position in the role of "expert sand years ago.° are likely to be all too eager to grasp un- witness," of scientist reporting to the public The scientific account of the size and critically at any scientific verification of regarding "developments going on in structure of the universe, its age, its evolu- their religious beliefs. astronomy" (p. Il). It is no part of tion, and the origin of man within it is astronomical or any other sort of scientific radically different from the biblical one. IV theory that there was a first cause, much less Jastrow tells us that "the details differ, but Putting aside the rhetoric, there is one basic that the God of Genesis exists. If science the essential elements in the astronomical similarity between the biblical and scientific tells us that there was a beginning, it tells us and biblical accounts of Genesis are the accounts. Both involve some sort of begin- only that there was a beginning. In just this, same." However, the single possible point of ning. But the mere fact of a beginning is not there is nothing at all of religious interest. agreement is that the universe had some sort of religious interest in itself. And so if V of beginning. (Having said the differences science is to be telling us anything of are only in detail [p. 14], Jastrow himself religious interest, the scientific view must go Does the big-bang theory really tell us even suggests only this one similarity.) If this is beyond a mere beginning to some sort of as much as that there was a beginning? It is mere difference in "details," then modern creator that was responsible for this begin- certainly common enough for cosmologists astronomy can be said to "lead to" the truth ning. to refer to the initial instant of the explosion of astrology. Both assert the existence of the Now it is not and cannot be part of any as "the beginning" or even as "the moment stars, don't they? Only "the details differ." scientific view that the God of the Jews and of creation." But then scientists rather often In short, even with the qualification about the Christians exists, for such a being is not adopt loose terminology when it makes for a differing "details," it is plainly false that the a spatio-temporal entity in the sense that is convenient shorthand. Before drawing con- modern scientific account is essentially the required for scientific hypothesizing. Still, it clusions from such phrases, it is important same as or leads to the biblical account. could be argued, almost commonsensically, to be certain that they are accurate descrip- And, it is impossible to resist mentioning that if the universe came into existence at tions and not merely linguistic conveniences. that no theologian that I can remember has some past time then this was an event and, (Because electron jumps are unpredictable, been "sitting there for centuries" waiting for according to the principle that every event some physicists have spoken of electronics science to discover any theological truth to must have a cause, that cataclysmic event "choosing" their energy state. E. J. Bing, the effect that the expansion of the universe must have had one. And so there must have oddly enough, himself a scientist, took this is due to an explosion twenty billion years been some kind of first cause ("creator"). literally and wrote that it shows that elec- ago. Knowing this much could be considered an trons have free wills) important step toward justifying belief in In fact, the big-bang theory does not tell III the God of Genesis. us that the initial instant of the explosion Criticizing Jastrow's position in the way that A number of questions could be raised was the absolute beginning of the universe. I have just done seems altogether too easy. about such an argument for a first cause. We Rather, it takes us back to that instant and One might suspect that the view criticized is might wonder about the truth of the princi- simply gives no account of what might have not only plainly false but is so very plainly ple that every event has a cause or about existed or what may have happened before false that it cannot be what he meant. When whether in applying it we have committed that. The initial instant of the big bang is not he says that science supports the biblical ac- something like the fallacy of composition — referred to as "the beginning" because it is count, by the phrase "the biblical account," the fallacy of moving from what is true of the absolute start of things. It is the begin- he must not mean the biblical account. He the parts to what is true of the whole. ning in the sense of the earliest point to

Winter 1981/82 33 which our understanding applies or in the appeared; but if it did, science cannot tell no indication that the silence of science sense of the beginning of the current expan- what kind of world it was" (pp. 114-115). regarding an absolute beginning is complete- sion of the universe. This admission by Jastrow himself virtually ly destructive of any claim that science It is possible that the initial instant of the sums up the criticisms of his thesis given verifies the biblical view. And, second, by big bang actually was an absolute beginning, above. For it means that science gives no shifting the sense of creation from the point the moment of the origin of the stuff of the support for there being even an absolute at which "the scientist's pursuit of the past universe. But it is also possible that the uni- beginning, much less a creator. And yet ends" to the sense of "an abrupt beginning" verse has gone through an unknown (some Jastrow, the scientist supposedly writing in when "God created heaven and earth." would even suggest infinite) number of con- the name of science, manages to make it This shift of senses of "creation" (and tractions and expansions and so had a long appear that the evidence is all on the side of also of "beginning," as wt; saw in section V history prior to the "initial instant." Or "the biblical view." above) permeates the book. Without it there perhaps the universe existed before that ins- One of the factors that contribute to this could be no book, for without it obviously tant in some unknown form other than that impression is that Jastrow admits the facts all that can be said is that science can trace of repeated expansions and contractions. but not their significance. He acknowledges back the history of the universe some twenty This too leaves open the possibility that the that science does not indicate an absolute billion years to the moment of the explosion. universe has existed for an infinite period of beginning, but he gives no indication that Beyond this, science is silent. It does not af- time. this contradicts the thesis that science sup- firm or deny that the moment of the explo- The big-bang theory does nothing to tell ports "the biblical view." For instance, in sion was the actual start of the universe. So us which of these is right. It does not dictate, the book he briefly discusses the possibility long as this is clear, no one is likely to take it or even mildly indicate, that the intial ins- that the universe has undergone some un- that there is scientific confirmation of "the tant of the big bang was the absolute begin- known number of oscillations, and so it did biblical view" or of anything remotely like ning of the existence of the universe. not begin twenty billion years ago. This dis- it. It should therefore be clear that modern cussion is relegated to the Epilogue, and it But in Jastrow's presentation this seldom science does not "lead to" the biblical ac- has the appearance of an afterthought that is clear. The "moment of creation" and the count of Genesis. Furthermore it does not does not bear on the main thesis, even "beginning" shift from their scientifically entail a creator. It does not even tell us that though part of that thesis is that the universe legitimate sense of the moment of the explo- the universe had an absolute beginning. did begin twenty billion years ago. (The sion, the earliest point of our knowledge, to Bluntly, at no point can contemporary structure of the Epilogue itself seems artful. the sense of the absolute beginning of the un- cosmology be enlisted in the aid of biblical It begins by asserting that there is agreement iverse, the moment when God created religion. about how the universe began (p. 117) and heaven and earth. This ambiguity is in- raises the question of how it will end. Only dispensable for giving an appearance of VI later are we told that the oscillation view religious significance to the religiously The sort of straightforward evaluation of "has the advantage of being able to answer neutral scientific facts. Thus it is not too Jastrow's thesis given above somehow does the question: What preceded the explosion?" strong to say that the entire book turns on not seem to do justice to his unusual book. (p. 119). First we are told that only the end is one crucial fallacious argument, an ambigui- The thesis is incorrect, but many books in question. The reader having this in mind, ty, a sophistry. center around incorrect theses. God and the the admission to the contrary — that the os- There are also other sophisries, uses of Astronomers stands out from the pack. It is cillation view has implications for the language that may. be persuasive even a downright curious book. possibility of a beginning — is likely to go though no real reasons are given. For in- What is genuinely curious is that a unnoticed.) stance, Jastrow makes free use of the loaded reputable scientist would write a book with Consider another passage. Immediately question. "Who or what put the matter and such a thoroughly indefensible thesis. Add after he mentions that "an entire world .. . energy into the universe? Was the universe to this the fact that Jastrow's arguments for may have existed before our universe created out of nothing, or was it gathered his thesis are exceedingly odd, especially appeared," Jastrow continues: together out of pre-existing materials" (p. considering that he is a scientist professing 114). Each of the alternatives offered in- to be speaking in the role of scientist. And it A sound explanation may exist for the ex- cludes an agent, a creator or gatherer. Other is more curious yet that Jastrow can show, plosion birth of our universe; but if it does, possibilities, which have not been excluded in the book itself, that he is aware of some of science cannot find out what the explana- on scientific grounds (a causeless origination the considerations that make the thesis in- tion is. The scientist's pursuit of the past or no beginning), are excluded just by the defensible ends in the moment of creation. without being deterred by those This is an exceedingly strange develop- way the questions are formulated. Again, considerations. One thing added to another: ment, unexpected by all but the "Some were even bolder, and asked 'who we are irresistibly led again to the crazy theologians. They have always accepted was the Prime Mover?' The British theorist logic of the world of Alice as it all gets the word of the Bible: In the beginning Edward Milne wrote ... 'our picture is in- "curiouser and curiouser." God created heaven and earth .... Scien- complete without Him' " (p. 112). tists (have found) evidence for an abrupt Jastrow clearly does acknowledge that the Possibilities that there is no prime mover, or beginning. [pp. 114-15] scientific theory tells us nothing about a prime mover that is not a "who," that does whether the moment of the big bang is to be In this truly remarkable passage, the fact not deserve the capitalization reserved for regarded as an absolute beginning. In the that science does not tell us anything about God, that is not a "Him," are excluded book he often says that we have no evidence whether or not there was an absolute begin- without argument by the unjustified phras- about what happened before the big bang. ning is magically transformed into a scien- ing of the question. At one point he even acknowledges that "an tific verification of the theological view that The latter passage is also disturbing for entire world, rich in structure and history, there was an absolute beginning. The another reason. It is introduced by Jastrow may have existed before our Universe transformation is achieved, first, by giving saying that "a few scientists bit the bullet

34 and dared to ask, 'What came before the clock. If it is running down, there must newspaper.' The claim of the letter is not beginning?' " And then, he characterizes have been a time when it was fully wound that revelation should hold sway over Milne as "bolder." Milne and others who up. ... When that was, and Who or what science. Instead, the anti-evolutionary sen- speculated that there must be a prime mover wound up the Universe, were questions timents expressed therein are purportedly are made to seem correct merely by descrip- that bemused theologians, physicists and based on new "scientific evidence favoring tion. They are the "bold" ones, who were astronomers, particularly in the 1920's and the Biblical origin of man." The letter is 1930's. [pp. 48-49] willing to face bravely the way things are signed by an M.D. This is the crucial [This] pointed to one conclusion ... the rather than to embrace a cowardly stance of Universe had a beginning. [p. III] passage in the letter: shrinking from reality. It is also appropriate to remember here If we disregard irrelevant analogies about The latest evidence on the subject of man's the sophistical device earlier referred to as such things as clocks, then the most that the origin is so revolutionary that it has evok- the Humpty Dumpty use of language. Just second law of thermodynamics tells us is ed a great deal of heated controversy and calling something what it is not may be per- consternation in the scientific community. that if we trace the universe back in time we More and more scientific study ac- suasive that it is the other thing. The scien- come to a point when there was a maximum cumulates which points to the "big bang" tific view is not the biblical view. When a of expendable energy (or minimum en- theory that an unknown force was respon- putative authority calls it that, one is likely tropy). Science tells us this and only this. sible for the sudden arrival of earth and to believe it is that without looking at the Here, again, it tells us nothing about how it man in the universe. These findings are repugnant to a large differences. Persuasion does not always re- came to be in that state. It is possible that a body of scientists and academicians quire reasons. god brought the universe into existence at because it [sic] invalidates their the instant of the big bang, and it is possible evolutionary view of man and undermines VII that a god brought the universe into ex- their secular-humanist ideology. It was suggested above that Jastrow im- istence at the moment of minimal entropy. plicitly appeals to a philosophical argument But science cannot tell us that this is so in The author of the letter is evidently under in attempting to _bring a creator into the either case. From a scientific point of view the impression that the big-bang cosmology scientific picture. That appeal is only im- the most that can be said is that we can trace means that the earth, complete with human plicit, but he does explicitly give some things so far back and no farther.' beings, came into existence at a specific mo- philosophical arguments. And they are very Both the argument that Jastrow borrows ment in the past, that big-bang cosmology is bad ones indeed. from Whittaker and the analogical argu- an alternative to mankind being the product One of the arguments is second-hand. ment for a "first winder" are philosophical, of evolutionary processes. not scientific, arguments. And they are par- I do not know that these lamentable A few scientists bit the bullet, and dared to ticularly weak arguments of that kind, ex- beliefs are in fact the result of Jastrow's ask, "What came before the beginning?" hibiting striking philosophical naivete. writings. But they could be. His talk of Edmund Whittaker, a British physicist, There is nothing wrong with a scientist's "creation," of "astronomical evidence ... said, "There is no ground for sup- posing that matter and energy existed dabbling in philosophy. There is something [leading] to a biblical view of the origin of before and were suddenly galvanized into very wrong with making it appear that it is the world," require little misinterpretation action. For what could distinguish that science that leads to the philosophical to have such a result. Scientists have respon- moment from all other moments in eter- conclusions so amateurishly derived. sibilities. They owe us better than this. nity?" Whittaker concluded, "It is simpler The use of endorsement by description, of to postulate creation ex nihilo — Divine will constituting Nature from noth- loaded questions, of ambiguous terms — Notes ingness." [pp. III-112] these sophistries seem almost insignificant next to that of invoking one's scientific I. Most of the text of this hook appeared in the This is a bad argument on a number of credentials, the authority of science itself, in Neu York Times Magazine (.lune 28. 1978). grounds. It could only apply if the support of a conclusion not dictated by and it appeared. abridged, in the Reader's possibilities are limited to creation ex nihilo science. Science does not indicate a god of Digest, July 1979. and to a preexisting mass of inert matter. any sort. It is disservice to make it appear 2. A neat "Cosmic 'lime Scale" table is in Joseph Silk's The Big Bong ... (Freeman: San Fran- And yet the scientific theory tells us only otherwise. cisco, 1980), pp. 66-67. The most recent evidence that we just do not know what happened or indicates that the big hang occurred closer to VIII existed before the big bang, and so there is eighteen billion years ago. no justification for the possibilities being Some might think that the worst Jastrow 3. A sketch of the biblical conception of the world limited to these two. Further, the argument has done is to have engaged in a bit of is in Nahum M. Sarna's (4uler.etetndin,g Genesis invokes, without saying so, various highly harmless hyperbole to his own enrichment (Schocken: New York, 1979). p. 5. doubtful assumptions about the requirement and possible amusement. In a day when the 4. Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656) put the begin for and nature of a cause, the sensibleness of denouncers of reason, science, and secular ning, on scriptural chronology, at 4004 B.C. creation ex nihilo, the "simplicity" of this ethics seem to be gaining in influence in Some traditional .lewish sources put it at 3760 hypothesis, and the Divine Will as a cause religion, politics, and society, it is hardly B.C. that does not itself require a cause. harmless to lead the public to think that 5. See the Lne,rr/opedia ofPhi/o.cop/ir. "Popular Arguments for the Existence of God." VI, p. Ignoring no source of popular appeal, science has at last, grudgingly, come to the 410. Jastrow leaves the big-bang theory and realization that the most basic of fundamen- 6. The entropy argument is hardly unknown to moves on to the second law of ther- talist beliefs is right after all. philosophers of religion. The standard reply is modynamics. the one given above. (See. for instance, En- IX i.relopedia of Philu.sop/n. VI. p. 410.) [This law,] applied to the Cosmos, indicates Recently a letter to the editor condemning 7. St. Louis Globe-Democrat, September 24; that the Universe is running down like a evolution was published in a major big-city 1980. •

Winter 1981/82 35