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
New Visions
Roots of SN, Part 2: Modern Cosmology

Roots of SN, Part 2: Modern Cosmology

Last updated on: January 1, 2015 at 1:00 pm by Spiritual Naturalist Society

Roots of SN, Part 2: Modern Cosmology 2015-01-01T13:00:01-05:00 Spiritual Naturalist Society

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.

It is surely strange to begin a history of ancient naturalism with modern cosmology.

Nevertheless, starting with the present can help elucidate preconceptions before proceeding to the past. In so doing, a clear picture of current understandings can be developed, the better to distinguish our own assumptions and avoid projecting them onto ancient peoples. At the same time, a foundation in the underlying concepts under investigation can be established.

This post is part of Roots of Spiritual Naturalism*, a series exploring the gradual emergence of Spiritual Naturalism in ancient times in order to gain an expanded sense of its meaning and historicity. See Part 1 for an overview.*

What is modern cosmology?

Modern cosmology, in a nutshell, is current science’s best answer to “What is the universe like?” and “How did we get here?”

More technically, modern physical cosmology describes the contemporary scientific study of the structure and dynamics of the physical universe, concerned with fundamental questions of its formation and evolution.

With that brief introduction, let’s dive right in. An analysis of key methods and assumptions, useful for comparing and contrasting with past eras, follows afterward.

A new creation story

Most creation stories start with how it all began. Modern cosmology does so as well, but with one crucial caveat: however impersonal the unfolding of the cosmos may be, our understanding of it arrives via human observation, reasoning, and experiment. Thus, the particular flavor of the modern creation story is best conveyed by starting with the human perspective. Many different people contributed to it, but one name will suffice as an example: Hubble.

The year was 1922. Edwin Hubble, sitting before the largest telescope at the time, turned its lens on some of the “nebulae” in deep space. What he saw… couldn’t be right. They were not nebulae at all, but galaxies like our own!

Until that point, it was thought that the universe consisted entirely of the Milky Way, which was static and eternal. But Hubble discovered we had barely fathomed the cosmos. There were billions more galaxies like ours, and what’s more – here’s where it really got crazy – they were all hurtling away from each other at increasing speeds.

If objects in the universe were moving away from each other, that implied they had once been together. The universe was not static and eternal, it had an origin: what we now call the Big Bang.

Hubble had the seed of a new creation story. However, it didn’t match with empirical observation. His calculations showed that the universe was younger than the earth, which was clearly impossible. Thus, however intriguing the story, it was not adopted. A beautiful theory was ruined by a brute fact. As in all good science, fact prevails over fancy.

Later, it was discovered that Hubble’s measurements had been off by a factor of ten. With more accurate measurements, theory fit fact. The new creation story worked. More researchers pursued many other independent lines of evidence all converging confidently on the same picture: the universe is expanding, and it began with a bang.

This theory makes an interesting prediction. If the universe really began with a super-hot explosion, there should be a feint but measurable trace of it, a residual afterglow if you will. Modern instruments have since detected exactly that: the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Thermal radiation, unassociated with stars, galaxies, or other objects, uniformly fills the entire observable universe. This is considered a key confirmation of the Big Bang model.

Recent discoveries may have even provided for why the Big Bang happened in the first place. Physicist Lawrence Krauss has examined the nature of nothing – meaning empty space with no particles, no energy, and no radiation – and found it to be a “a boiling, bubbling, brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence on a time scale so short you can’t see them.” As ephemeral as such virtual particles may seem, they are responsible for “the best comparisons between theory and experiment in all of science, to ten decimal places in quantum electrodynamics.” While most of us would intuit this bubbling brew to be “something”, our human difficulties conceiving of “nothing” in this way is no measure of the actual nature of it. The cause of the Big Bang then, according to Krauss, is that it had to happen: “If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you’ll always get something.”

This narrative does no justice to the innumerable other contributors to modern cosmology, not the least of which is George Lemaître, who actually discovered the expansion of the universe first but published in a lesser-known journal. Nor does it do justice to the many more considerations and lines of evidence necessary to establish firm confidence in the Big Bang theory. Nevertheless, it provides a taste. Moreover, the story has been told not to make a hero of Hubble, though a hero he may be, but to illustrate some of modern cosmology’s methods and assumptions, which may lurk in the backs of our minds as we gaze upon the past.

Methods and assumptions

Pertinent in this story are human observation, reasoning, and empirical evidence. Though Hubble’s original expanding-universe hypothesis had been correct, it was rejected on empirical criteria. Furthermore, error and correction played a crucial part, involving a community of peer criticism. Scientific knowledge is assumed from the start to be fallible and progressive: fallible in that it is always liable to error, and progressive in that discoveries of error lead to new and better theories closer to the truth.

These features mark modern science off from many other historical traditions. They developed only over long centuries in particular contexts, and we would do well neither to project them onto the past nor to scorn past thinkers for lacking what had not yet developed.

More can be said of the assumptions implicit in modern cosmology. Everything in the universe is depicted as unfolding according to impersonal physical laws. Those last three terms will prove crucial to our investigation, so it will be worthwhile to develop them.

Impersonal means without any personality, any intentional agent or agents, directing it all. This is not necessarily to say that deities do not exist, only that they are not necessary to explain the universe. Nor does this mean there are no persons, only that personality ultimately functions according to impersonal processes.
Physical means all constituents of the universe are of one essential kind, namely matter-energy. Modern physics admits of more bizarre stuff than the popular conception of matter necessarily implies, but nevertheless there is no need to invoke a second substance such as soul or mind to explain phenomena.
Laws means a predictable order that is at is whether we like it or not. Our understanding of those laws may be flawed, but the way things actually work does not depend on our understanding or intentions.

These assumptions – it is misleading even to refer to them as assumptions, since they have been arrived at through extensive testing, refinement, and more testing – are characteristic of modern science in general, as well as the philosophy of naturalism which underpins it.

They are not, however, unique to modern science. Multiple ancient traditions have incorporated them in whole or in part. Thus, they offer an important means of comparison and contrast with past eras.

Understanding naturalism

We are now in a better position to understand naturalism. As mentioned last time, naturalism can be defined as “the system of those who find all primary causes in nature” (Furst and Skrine, 1971). It should now be clear that nature, in this context, refers to the universe of impersonal physical laws. Each people and age has its own concept of nature, and it will be important to keep the modern concept in its era and ancient ones in theirs.

The way to live?

Every creation story implies something about how we ought to live. Is modern cosmology an exception?

The reason for hesitation lies in what philosophers since Hume have more or less acknowledged as the is-ought problem or naturalistic fallacy: you can’t get an ought from an is. This separation of facts and values is a distinction ancient peoples did not make and which remains questionable today. The next installment of this series will dwell further upon this issue, as we use evolution to explore modern views on human life and purpose.

Meanwhile, scientists are not completely reticent on the implications for human values. To conclude, here are a few such nuggets from Lawrence Krauss:

“The universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.”
“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand.”
“It should give us a kind of cosmic humility, which is the other thing that should be characteristic of science: humility, the recognition that we don’t understand everything. … We should realize that there’s more we don’t understand about the universe than we do.”

For an inspiring presentation of Big History from the Big Bang to the present, see David Christian’s TED Talk. See also the International Big History Association and TheGreatStory.org.

CONTINUE TO PART 3 >>

Subscribe to The Spiritual Naturalist Society
Learn about Membership in the Spiritual Naturalist Society

__________
The Spiritual Naturalist Society works to spread awareness of spiritual naturalism as a way of life, develop its thought and practice, and help bring together like-minded practitioners in fellowship.

__________
Written by B.T. Newberg.

__________
This article was first published in slightly altered form at Patheos.com.

References

Christian, D. and McNeill, W. H. (2011). Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History. Los Angeles: University of California Press

Furst, L. and Skrine, P. (1971). Naturalism. London: Methuen.

Krauss, L. (2012). A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press.

Previous Posts in this Series

Introduction

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 20, 2014

Gnothi Seauton: On Being Human

Next Post

August 22, 2014 Spirituality Without the Supernatural? New Book Offers Bold Vision

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Spiritual Naturalism Uncategorized

Select a Month 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 August 2017 July 2017 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 January 2015 December 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 April 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz