Jastrow on Science, Philosophy, and Theology

Last updated on: November 13, 2017 at 10:50 pm by Andrew

Jastrow on Science, Philosophy, and Theology 2017-11-13T22:50:39-05:00 Andrew

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.

Robert Jastrow is one of my favorite agnostic authors on the big questions. As founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a popular author, I’ve very much appreciated his insights on the intersection of science (specifically cosmology), philosophy, and theology. The combination of his knowledge and humility are rare, especially among today’s skeptical scientists who write on these topics (like Lawrence Krauss who wrote A Universe from Nothing).

To Aristotle and Liebniz’s timeless question, “Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?”, Jastrow eloquently paints the picture:

“Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions, because, according to the astronomers, in the first moments of its existence the Universe was compressed to an extraordinary degree, and consumed by the heat of a fire beyond human imagination. The shock of that instant must have destroyed every particle of evidence that could have yielded a clue to the cause of the great explosion.” [1]

In Big Bang Cosmology, the world having a beginning, and the laws of physics breaking down, both bear significant scientific and philosophical (and correspondingly theological for many) pause. Science can only ask (and answer) scientific questions; empirical and verifiable physical facts. For a “First Cause” and “Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing?”, we’re left with the tools of philosophy (reason, metaphysics, etc).

There’s an incredibly important point here missed by many Christian and skeptical thinkers: whether or not the Universe had a beginning is besides the point. Now, Jastrow certainly thought it did, as do many other contemporary scientists, but since Jastrow’s hay day in cosmology, there is now some provocative discussion occurring on Multiverse Theory and models of an infinite universe(s). Interestingly, such models cannot be verified empirically, but reasoned metaphysically, hence a move to such models involve a philosophical endeavor, not a scientific one.

But even if the Universe is infinite, “First Cause” as described by Aristotle (who actually thought the Universe was infinite) is not chronological, but ontological. If the Universe is infinite, what caused it? For those truly willing to face the question, not in a Lawrence Krauss-eque fashion, (as atheist philosopher of science David Albert correctly took Krauss to task for fallaciously redefining the word “nothing” as quantum vacuums, which are of course not “nothing”), the question remains: why were there quantum vacuums rather than nothing? Infinite universe models and quantum vacuums are still something. Back to the persistent and ultimate metaphysical question: “Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?” The terminus of such reasoning, for those with a bend towards philosophical theology, is the idea of God as Pure Act, the UnMoved Mover, the Necessity of which all contingent things depend. This metaphysical conception of God lies at the heart of natural theology, and will remain a timeless theme, as the universe having a beginning is irrelevant to the ultimate question of why anything exits at all.

In Jastrow’s words:

“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 peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” [2]

Notes:

[1] Jastrow, Robert. 1992. God and the Astronomers. New York: Norton, 106.

[2] Ibid, 107.

Musings

Previous Post

November 10, 2017

Schrödinger on Consciousness

Next Post

November 17, 2017 A Picture of Redemption in Blood Diamond

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Book Reviews Deep Scene Breakdown Deep Song Breakdown Events with Adam Lee Iron Heart Musings Podcast Quote Bank

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

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Stephen see as he was being stoned?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The face of God Angels descending A bright light from heaven Heaven opened and Jesus standing at the right hand of God