Or rather, the observable Universe's existence. As time goes on, the volume of space increases, and light has to travel for longer to reach us. There is a lot more universe out there than we can view, but the most distant object that we have seen is a galaxy, GN-z11, observed by the Hubble Space Telescope.
This is approximately 1. But when the light "set off", the galaxy was only about three billion light years away from our galaxy, the Milky Way. We cannot observe or see across the entirety of the Universe that has grown since the Big Bang because insufficient time has passed for light from the first fractions of a second to reach us.
Some argue that we therefore cannot be sure whether the laws of physics could be broken in other cosmic regions — perhaps they are just local, accidental laws. And that leads us on to something even bigger than the Universe. Many cosmologists believe that the Universe may be part of a more extended cosmos, a multiverse , where many different universes co-exist but don't interact.
Inflation is an important theory because it can explain why the Universe has the shape and structure that we see around us. But if inflation could happen once, why not many times? We know from experiments that quantum fluctuations can give rise to pairs of particles suddenly coming into existence, only to disappear moments later. And if such fluctuations can produce particles, why not entire atoms or universes?
It's been suggested that , during the period of chaotic inflation, not everything was happening at the same rate — quantum fluctuations in the expansion could have produced bubbles that blew up to become universes in their own right.
But how does God fit into the multiverse? One headache for cosmologists has been the fact that our Universe seems fine-tuned for life to exist. The fundamental particles created in the Big Bang had the correct properties to enable the formation of hydrogen and deuterium — substances which produced the first stars.
Could quantum physics help explain a God that could be in two places at once? Credit: Nasa. The physical laws governing nuclear reactions in these stars then produced the stuff that life's made of — carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. How come all the physical laws and parameters in the universe happen to have the values that allowed stars, planets and ultimately life to develop?
Some argue it's just a lucky coincidence. Others say we shouldn't be surprised to see biofriendly physical laws — they after all produced us, so what else would we see?
Some theists, however, argue it points to the existence of a God creating favourable conditions. But God isn't a valid scientific explanation. The theory of the multiverse, instead, solves the mystery because it allows different universes to have different physical laws. Even today, a majority of people on the planet live under conditions of abject poverty, malnutrition and disease. Over ages past, the sum, total of human anguish and pain that has been endured beggars the imagination.
According to humanism, suffering of the innocent in this life is just an unfortunate fact the suffering is irredeemable. On the other hand, Christianity views life in relation to a divine purpose of love, and sees how out of suffering can come a good of infinite value, a good which justifies the pain of the suffering. Because certain aspects of the vision offered by humanism are unpalatable does not mean that the philosophy must be untrue.
However, it seems to me that, since the God hypothesis can answer the tragic aspects of the humanist philosophy so comfortably, it should at least be carefully considered by all.
On the other hand, while it may well be comforting to believe in the existence of God, is such a belief reasonable, or lust a comforting illusion? A belief that is reasonable simply means that there are adequate grounds for the belief. Are there adequate grounds for belief in God?
I believe that for some people there are adequate grounds and for others there are not. Did Jesus himself have adequate grounds for belief in God? It is clear from the gospel that Jesus believed with every fibre of his being that he lived in the presence of God, with whom he had easy and open communication.
For Jesus not to believe in God would have been to reject his own sanity. So, what about the reasonableness of our belief in God?
If we find that the teachings of Jesus strike a deep chord in us and stake a claim on our hearts and minds, if the words of Jesus strike us as coming from a cool and sane mind, if following the teaching of Jesus produces positive effects in our lives, then I believe we have adequate grounds for belief in the God of whom Jesus spoke. As a scientist I am proud of the spectacular progress that science has made over the last several hundred years in advancing our understanding of the natural world.
And there is no reason to think that this progress will not continue indefinitely. But there is more to understanding the world in its entirety than science alone can command, powerful and all as it is. This news gives me an excuse to post an interview I carried out with Collins for National Geographic in , a time when Richard Dawkins , Daniel Dennett and others were vigorously attacking religion.
Below is an edited transcript of my conversation with Collins, which took place in Washington, D. I liked Collins, whom I found to be surprisingly unassuming for a man of such high stature. Collins, it seems, has lots of faith in God but not much in humanity. Horgan: How does it feel to be at the white-hot center of the current debate between science and religion?
Collins: This increasing polarization between extremists on both ends of the atheism and belief spectrum has been heartbreaking to me.
If my suggestion that there is a harmonious middle ground puts me at the white-hot center of debate--Hooray! Horgan: The danger in trying to appeal to people on both sides of a polarized debate is Collins: Bombs thrown at you from both directions! Horgan: Has that happened? Collins [sighs]: The majority have responded in very encouraging ways.
And then I get some very strongly worded messages from fundamentalists who feel that I have compromised the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and call me a false prophet.
Horgan: Why do you think the debate has become so polarized? Collins: It starts with an extreme articulation of a viewpoint on one side of the issue and that then results in a response that is also a little bit too extreme, and the whole thing escalates. Every action demands an equal and opposite reaction. Whether it was the Inquisition or the Crusades on the one hand or the World Trade Center on the other? But we also have this thing called free will which we exercise all the time to break that law.
Collins: There is a sad truth there. I think we Christians have been way too ready to define ourselves as members of an exclusive club. I found truth, I found joy, I found peace in that particular conclusion, but I am not in any way suggesting that that is the conclusion everybody else should find.
And quick to start arguments and fights and even wars! Look at the story of the Good Samaritan, which is a parable from Jesus himself. Horgan: How can you, as a scientist who looks for natural explanations of things and demands evidence, also believe in miracles, like the resurrection? Collins: My first struggle was to believe in God. Not a pantheist God who is entirely enclosed within nature, or a Deist God who started the whole thing and then just lost interest, but a supernatural God who is interested in what is happening in our world and might at times choose to intervene.
My second struggle was to believe that Christ was divine as He claimed to be. As soon as I got there, the idea that He might rise from the dead became a non-problem. But as a scientist I set my standards for miracles very high. Horgan: The problem I have with miracles is not just that they violate what science tells us about how the world works.
Research Topics. Report Materials. Related Publications Jul 9, Publications Jun 16, Publications Dec 30, Publications Aug 6, Polling and Analysis Aug 6,
0コメント