Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
Scientific discovery as an encounter with the divine

Scientific discovery as an encounter with the divine

Last updated on: January 20, 2018 at 4:12 pm by Dan Peterson

Scientific discovery as an encounter with the divine 2018-01-20T16:12:55-07:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The famous Mathematical Bridge, first constructed in 1749, connects two parts of Queens’ College, University of Cambridge, across the River Cam.
(Wikimedia Commons public domain image)

Although it appears to be an arch, the Mathematical Bridge was built using only straight pieces of timber. Popular legend says that it was designed by Sir Isaac Newton, who was a graduate and later a Fellow of Cambridge University. This is, however, not true.

(Wikimedia Commons public domain image)

John Charlton Polkinghorne, KBE (Knight of the British Empire), FRS (Fellow of the Royal Society), was a professor of mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge until he resigned his professorial chair to study for the priesthood, becoming an ordained Anglican priest in 1982. Thereupon, he served as the president of Queens’ College, Cambridge, from 1988 until 1996.

The following notes are drawn from his 1996 Terry Lectures, delivered at Yale University and published as John Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an Age of Science (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998):

“The world is not full of items stamped ‘made by God’ — the Creator is more subtle than that — but there are two locations where general hints of the divine presence might be expected to be seen most clearly. One is the vast cosmos itself, with its fifteen-billion-year history of evolving development following the big bang. The other is the ‘thinking reed’ of humanity, so insignificant in physical scale but, as Pascal said, superior to all the stars because it alone knows them and itself. The universe and the means by which that universe has come marvelously self-aware — these are the centres of our enquiry.” (1-2)

“Those who work in fundamental physics encounter a world whose large-scale structure (as described by cosmology) and small-scale process (as described by quantum theory) are alike characterised by a wonderful order that is expressible in concise and elegant mathematical terms. The distinguished theoretical physicist Paul Dirac, who was not a conventionally religious man, was once asked what was his fundamental belief. He strode to a blackboard and wrote that the laws of nature should be expressed in beautiful equations. It was a fitting affirmation by one whose fundamental discoveries had all come from his dedicated pursuit of mathematical beauty. The use of abstract mathematics as a technique of physical discovery points to a very deep fact about the nature of the universe that we inhabit, and to the remarkable conformity of our human minds to its patterning. We live in a world whose physical fabric is endowed with transparent rational beauty.

“Attempts have been made to explain away this fact. No one would deny, of course, that evolutionary necessity will have moulded our ability for thinking in ways that will ensure its adequacy for understanding the world around us, at least to the extent that is demanded by pressures for survival. Yet our surplus intellectual capacity, enabling us to comprehend the microworld of quarks and gluons and the macro world of big bang cosmology, is on such a scale that it beggars belief that this is simply a fortunate by-product of the struggle for life. Remember that Sherlock Holmes told a shocked Dr. Watson that he didn’t care whether the Earth went round the Sun or vice versa, for it had no relevance to the pursuits of his daily life.” (2-3)

Polkinghorne is not at all sympathetic to notions that mathematics is merely a rather arbitrary human invention. It works too well in such fields as physics. And, anyway,

“The sense of discovery, to which the mathematicians testify, encourages the belief that there is a realm of reality in which entities like the Mandelbrot set exist everlastingly.” (xiii)

To make his point, he tells the story of Albert Einstein’s development of the theory of general relativity through mathematical reasoning, and of his delight — perhaps the strongest emotional experience in Einstein’s life — when he found that it accounted for a discrepancy regarding the planet Mercury that, under Newtonian physics, had baffled astronomers for more than six decades. Nature, Einstein felt, “had spoken to him.” (3-4)

“There is no a priori reason why beautiful equations should prove to be the clue to understanding nature; why fundamental physics should be possible; why our minds should have such ready access to the deep structure of the universe. It is a contingent fact that this is true of us and of our world, but it does not seem sufficient simply to regard it as a happy accident. Surely it is a significant insight into the nature of reality.” (4)

“I believe that Dirac and Einstein, in making their great discoveries, were participating in an encounter with the divine.” (4)

“The ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’ in uncovering the structure of the physical world (to use Eugene Wigner’s pregnant phrase) is a hint of the presence of the Creator.” (4)

But only a hint. An indicator for those with eyes to see. Not a coercive and inescapable proof.

“I do not present this conclusion as a logical demonstration — we are in the realm of metaphysical discourse where such certainty is not available either to believer or to unbeliever — but I do present it as a coherent and intellectually satisfying understanding.” (4-5)

Dr. Polkinghorne regards “natural theology” — the attempt to discern the existence and perhaps some of the character of God from nature rather than from special revelation, as “an insightful, rather than logically demonstrative, discipline” (xi) Nevertheless, he openly states his “conviction that theism offers the ‘best explanation’ of the many-levelled character of human encounter with reality” (xii) and that “there is a Mind and a Purpose behind the history of the universe” (1). “I believe,” he says, “that the rational beauty of the cosmos indeed reflects the Mind that holds it in being.” (4)

***

I wrote a column for the Deseret News some time back in which I referred to another aspect of Dr. Polkinghorne’s thinking:

“Maybe the firing squad was on your side”

Previous Post

January 19, 2018

Lucky Joseph!

Next Post

January 20, 2018 Some resemblances between Islam and Mormonism (Part Two)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 March 2014 August 2013 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who led the Israelites into the promised land after Moses?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Samuel Joshua David Solomon