Kragh Matter and Spirit in the Universe
McCall Kragh Review:
Regarding the ‘non-religious farce’ of some scientists, Ralph Waldo Emerson says, “A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.” Emerson elsewhere adds, “The religion that fears science insults God and commits suicide.” Kragh outlines, expansively, the historical tension of Cosmology and Theology in his compendium volume entitled Matter and Spirit in the Universe. Kragh’s title is the 3rd in a series that seeks to explore the History of Modern Physical Sciences. Indeed, said series, includes books dealing with the development of physics, astronomy, and chemistry during the past ~200 hundred years. In said period there were many important discoveries in the sciences that radically changed the understanding of the natural world. Said series of books attempts, then, to offer considerations of philosophical and religious concerns that have arisen from aforementioned developments in science. Professional historians of science, of which Kragh is premier, engage the substance of scientific research, as developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. I deem it true, upon my reading, that the largest contributions of Kragh related to the areas of Olber's Paradox, Positivism and Observation, a-priori agendas, generalized nontheistic positions of scientists from the era covered by the book, the concept of Heat Death, and the concept of Entropy.
McCall Kragh Presentation, Matter and Spirit in the Universe:
I will note that I do not desire to state each individual view of each individual person covered in the 1st 2 chapters, as that would be laborious, redundant, and ridiculous.
It should not be necessary for me to make a case for the spiritual dimension of our world, but over the last 2 centuries, Western culture has been in denial of spirit and has been busily elevating the status of matter.
In the process our society and culture have lost their balance and wholeness.
Indeed, scientists with an agenda to dispel the notion of a Deity have seemingly dominated science for the last 2 centuries, as evidenced by Kragh’s present book.
These scientists often claim to disbelieve in any and all types of a ‘god’, but in fact merely exchange the True God for a ‘god’ of their own making, which eerily resembles themselves, to be sure.
Regarding the ‘non-religious farce’ of some scientists, Ralph Waldo Emerson says, “A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.”
Emerson elsewhere adds, “The religion that fears science insults God and commits suicide.”
In order to restore this balance of spirit and matter, I posit that we must emphasize the importance of Spirit in this present age.
Cosmology was rarely considered to be a scientific endeavor prior to the 19th century.
Indeed, 18th and 19th, and even early 20th century astronomers were concerned only with what they could directly detect empirically, and therefore they were inherently limited in their scope to only that which they could observe.
In this era of logical positivism, theories and hypotheses, then, were only put forward for that which could be observed, apriori limiting the development of a coherent cosmology.
Kragh outlines, expansively, the historical tension of Cosmology and Theology in this volume entitled Matter and Spirit in the Universe.
Kragh delineates that often in the last 2 centuries, those who adhere to a form of Christian theism are more than willing to learn from the Natural Sciences (especially Cosmology), but Scientists have not reciprocated said willingness to learn in contrast.
Indeed, Kragh notes that “Cosmology has always been important to theology, and until fairly recently, vice-versa” (pg. 3).
I deem it true, upon my reading, that the largest contributions of Kragh related to the areas of Olber's Paradox, Positivism and Observation, a-priori agendas, generalized nontheistic positions of scientists from the era covered by the book, the concept of Heat Death, and the concept of Entropy.
Kragh divides the past 2 centuries into 3 distinct timeframes: 1) the Newtonian (1860-1915), 2) the Scientific Cosmology (1915-1950), 3) and then the Convergence of the previous two timeframes (1950-1965).
Newtonian Cosmology invoked a “god of the gaps” in order to support his posit of the universe having infinite domains regarding both time and space.
Newton readily recognized that the organization of the universe seemingly required a Designer, as well as the existence of certain phenomena that could not be explained scientifically, which were his two posits regarding God and His necessity.
Scientific Cosmology was characterized by numerous speculative notions regarding the notion of entropy, as well as the other thermal dynamic aspects of our universe, which together pointed to a beginning of our universe.
Convergence was completed in 1965 by the discovery of background radiation, and the resulting concept became known as the Big Bang Theory.
Kragh depicts the uneasy acceptance and (at times!) harsh treatment that this Big Bang Theory has received from the Academia b/c it was generally perceived that it was nothing else but an underlying motive to bring God in as creator
However, as Kragh clearly displays, the Christian posit of creation is not equivalent to temporal initiation.
So then, the Christian notion of creation does not entail a beginning in time.
Leibenez posited that due to the contingency of things that exist to things that preceded them, logic infers that at the inception of causation, there must have been a final reason, which [who] is known as God.
So then, Leibenez is the originator of the commonly advocated notion of today known as the Cosmological Argument.
The Cosmological Argument essentially posits that everything in the universe is contingent, and therefore must have a cause, which cause is, when continually regressed to inception, God.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, the notion of the Nebular Hypothesis was largely supported.
The Nebular Hypothesis posited that nebulae were composed of hot gaseous clouds, and that the number of nebulae in the universe was practically incalculable (or infinite).
However, due to an infinite number of nebulae, it was a logical inference for critics to contend that an infinity of stars was cause the night to be infinitely bright, which was (& is) contrary to observation (known as Olber’s Paradox).
In an attempt to dispute Olber’s Paradox, it was posited that space was sufficiently clustered with matter that the light being emitted from stars was absorbed sufficiently to disallow continual and incessant light in the universe.
However, by the end of 19th century, it seemed apparent that space was extremely transparent, and as a result, absorption could not be invoked to account for the lack of continual light (so what to do?- reject infinity!)
Around the same timeframe, it was posited that in view of the scientific evidence, we are in a trilemma: Either we must deny that anything exists, or we must allow that it was created ex nihilo, or that it existed from eternity.
Also during the middle of the 19th century, the thermodynamical theory of heat death, based chiefly upon the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, became commonly used as support for theism against both materialism & atheism.
This 2nd Law of Thermodynamics asserts, in essence, that energy is conserved at all times, in that it is neither created nor destroyed.
As a result of this 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, an unbounded quantity of heat would result from chemical reactions in the universe, which would in effect, then, eventually incinerate the universe in a fireball (of sorts).
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was beneficial to the budding science of Cosmology for several reasons, including that it contradicted any view of a cyclic universe, & in extension it lends credence to the position of a distinct beginning & end of the universe.
By implication, a beginning of the universe requires a universe of finite age.
As the present day physicist, Paul Davies, states that “the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end states an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist” (51).
However, there have been several scientists who vehemently dispute the notion of the universe having either a beginning or an end.
For example, Ernst Haeckel, the avowed naturalistic atheist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, vociferously resisted the notion of both the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as well as its correlate, Entropy.
Haeckel wrote, “If this theory of entropy were true, we should have a ‘beginning’ corresponding to this assumed ‘end’ of the world” (63).
Therefore, Haeckel argued for an infinite and eternal universe, filled with ether, matter, or energy, which reduced down to a cyclic depiction of the universe (against the evidence, note).
In 1923, Einstein applied his new theory of General Relativity to the universe at large, expanding the cosmological inquiries further than ever theretofore.
In an important note, Einstein, as his theory of relativity had originally been constructed, placed a Cosmological Constant into the equation, so as to preserve the appearance of a static universe.
It was only as Einstein removed this Cosmological Constant that his mathematical equation pointed definitively toward an expanding universe.
I will again note to you here that this ‘gerrymandering’ with his equation gives further evidence of how people often manipulate their results and/or interpretations in order to fit with their preconceived ideas.
Note further, that although Einstein was a “Jew”, he was ‘non-religious’ explicitly, and had in fact resorted to practical atheism, b/c it provided him a “positively fanatic orgy of free thinking” (76) [emphasis mine].
Einstein held to what Barbour would classify as the Independence View of the relation between Science and Religion (versus the Integration View, the Dialogue View, and the Conflict View).
Frankly, however, in his later life (i.e. 1941), Einstein seemingly softened toward religion, as apparent in the following quotations: “I cannot conceive of a genuine scientists without that profound faith [that the laws of nature are comprehensible]”, and then stated, “science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind” (his own definitions of each?).
Because of Hubble’s data, combined with Einstein’s theory, the intellectual climate had been primed to embrace the notion of an expanding universe with open arms.
Into this situation, enters Lemaitre, who posited in 1931 that the universe developed from an explosive act from a compact nucleus (later to be termed Big Bang theory).
When asked if the conflicts b/t science and religion disturb his faith in God, Lemaitre avers, “I have no conflict to reconcile’. ‘Science has not shaken my faith in religion, and religion has never caused me to question the conclusions I reached by scientific methods” (143).
So then, Lemaitre advocated a Thomist view of the relation between Science and Religion (i.e. 2 different roads to truth, religious and scientific, which I also hold), which would align with Barbour’s concept of the Independence View.
Lemaitre, therefore, supports Galileo as well as Augustine before him, who wrote that “the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men things of no relevance to their salvation [for] the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes” (144).
Pope Pius XII also could not resist getting into the proliferating discussion of the relation between Science and Religion (Pope advocated an Integration View).
Indeed, in 1951, Pius XII gave explicit affirmation that the ‘new physics’ gave solid evidence to the belief in a transcendent Creator.
Pope Pius XII wrote, “when [the enlightened mind] examines facts and passes judgment on them, it… recognizes [the world was] set in motion by the mighty fiat of the Creating Spirit, billions of years ago” (149).
Later, in 1952, Pope Pius XII extended his confidence in the ‘new physics’ in saying that modern cosmology indicated “the existence of an infinitely superior Spirit, a Spirit which creates, conserves and governs” (151, emphasis mine).
Beloved of God, the Christian need not favor any one particular theory of Creation by God’s Spirit over another, because the doctrine of creation is not about temporal beginnings, but about the relationship between the world and God instead (245).
Robert Jastrow accurately depicts what will occur in the Last Days:
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peaks; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” (256).
In conclusion, “we shall be wise if we build our conviction that God has made [this universe and everything in it] upon other foundations than those of modern science” (Eric Mascall, 1951).