According to the Dutch theologian Willem Drees,

"A creation story begins with the beginning. But we do not know our reality as a film shown to us from the first scene onwards. Our situation resembles the predicament of archaeologists. We find traces and clues - and seek to understand the past. In that process, we answer questions and pass on other questions."

And, sometime it seems that we forget this temporal finitude of ours. For "in the beginning" we were not there, and every story about that beginning is a story, a narrative, whose content depends heavily on the narrator. And even after the story has been told, Drees observes that "two types of questions remain. [They] are persistent questions about fundamental rules: Why does matter behave the way it actually behaves? Why are the laws of nature the way they are? What is matter? And there are persistent questions of an historical kind: Where does everything come from? How did it all begin? Such questions arise again and again when a sequence of questions is pursued. They are questions at the boundaries of science, 'the horizon of not knowing'. Scientists can explain much, but that does not get one around these questions. The horizon moves, but is not removed."

No, and as a matter of fact and experience, it would seem that the more you know, the more you know you don't know. It's not for nothing that Willem Drees concludes today's selection from his book Creation: From Nothing Unti= l Now (Paperback or Library Binding, 128pp; ISBN: 0-4152-5653-4; Routledge; December 2001) with a reference to Nicolas of Cusa's text "On learned ignorance". However, I suspect that what really remains in the end for ever= y human being is not learned ignorance but the very subject at issue here today: mystery. For it is this sense of mystery that lures us all on "the road to find out" as Cat Stevens might say. Or, as the physicist Charles Misner is quoted as saying in today's column: =20 "Saying that God created the universe does not explain either God or th= e Universe, but it keeps our consciousness alive to mysteries of awesome majesty that we might otherwise ignore, and that deserve our respect."

Willem B. Drees is professor of philosophy of religion and ethics at Leiden University, the Netherlands. He has an advanced degree in theoretical physics (Utrecht, 1977) and doctorates in theology (Groningen, 1989) and philosophy (Amsterdam, 1994). He is the author of a variety of books and articles in Dutch, German and English, including Religion, Science and Naturalism (Cambridge UP, 1996) and Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologie= s and God (Open Court, 1990).

--Stacey E. Ake

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Subject: Creation: From Nothing Until Now, Part 2 From: Willem B. Drees Email: <wb@drees.nl>

Scene 2. Mystery

The timewhen there was no timeis a horizon of not knowinga mist where our questions fadeand no echo returns. Then,in the beginning,perhaps not the beginning,in the first fraction of a second,perhaps not the first fractionof the first second,our universe beganwithout us.

Will we ever be able to answer all questions concerning the early universe? The way I see it, science will be able to move back the horizon. We will se= e farther, and hence differently. Our horizon might shift, but I believe that science will not remove this 'horizon of not knowing'. There will always be 'a mist where our questions fade, and no echo returns.'

A creation story begins with the beginning. But we do not know our reality as a film shown to us from the first scene onwards. Our situation resembles the predicament of archaeologists. We find traces and clues - and seek to understand the past. In that process, we answer questions and pass on other questions.

An architect who constructs a building, decides to use concrete. He has= , we hope, knowledge of the forces that this concrete will be able to withstand. If someone would ask why the forces are as they are, the architect might refer us to an engineer who studies material sciences. This engineer should be able to inform us about experiments and the relevant theory, about the wear and tear of the materials concerned, and their relations to chemical bonds between the various materials. Perhaps the engineer even knows from which geological deposit the sand and cement have been taken. However, if you go on asking how those layers came to be there, the engineer will refer to a geologist. The geologist can tell a story abou= t the erosion of mountains and sedimentation of sand and stones by rivers. Perhaps the geologist can discover that the sand used was part of a particular mountain range, and perhaps even that the same material was already deposited on a sea floor before. However, if one continues by askin= g where the silicon and oxygen come from, the chemical elements making up sand, the geologist will have to say that these were there when the Earth formed. For further questions, he will refer to the astrophysicist. And the astrophysicist can answer many questions, about the formation of elements out of hydrogen in the interiors of stars and during supernova explosions, and the way these elements are distributed in the universe and may get included when a solar system forms (see below, scene 4). However, this explanation assumes that there is already hydrogen as the material out of which stars are formed. When we go on with 'historical' questions we come t= o theories about the earliest stages of the universe, to the turf of the cosmologist.

This, in a nutshell, is typical of science. Scientists answer questions belonging to their province of expertise, while passing on other questions, about the things they take for granted in their own work. In the end, two types of questions remain. There are persistent questions about fundamental rules: Why does matter behave the way it actually behaves? Why are the laws of nature the way they are? What is matter? And there are persistent questions of an historical kind: Where does everything come from? How did i= t all begin? Such questions arise again and again when a sequence of question= s is pursued. They are questions at the boundaries of science, 'the horizon o= f not knowing'. Scientists can explain much, but that does not get one around these questions. The horizon moves, but is not removed.

Some people have attempted to answer such questions in a different way, by referring to our own existence. If we had not been there, we could not pose such questions. The universe is as it is, since that is the kind of univers= e in which we can exist. If the universe had been slightly different, life as we know it could not have come into existence.

That life would not have come into existence in a universe which were different seems to follow from various thought experiments. If one makes a mathematical model, one can also see how the universe would have developed if certain conditions and parameters had been different. What if the universe had slightly larger mass, or a slightly higher velocity at the onset of the expansion? What if the electron were a tiny bit heavier than the actual one? An electrical force which is smaller, or stronger compared to gravity? Why not space with two dimensions rather than three? And so on. All kinds of variations can be tried in our models. Such modifications, eve= n small ones, can be shown to have major consequences, at least in the contex= t of such models.

An example. The universe as we know it seems much larger than we need for our kind of life. We do not need much more than a solar system. And if we want to be generous, one galaxy with some hundred billion stars is large enough for us. Could the universe, then, not have been much smaller? The size of the universe seems pointless, wastefully abundant for a creator interested in life, and especially in conscious and responsible life such a= s humans. But is the size really pointless? If there is to be enough time for the formation of the heavy elements (see below, scene 4) and for the evolution of life (scene 5 and 6), the universe has to exist long enough -
but then it also has to be large enough, since the longer the universe exists, the farther light has traveled. And in order to be big, the univers= e needs sufficient mass. According to current scientific models, a universe with the mass of a single galaxy would expand for only one month before collapsing again. Life could not have developed.

Let us assume that our universe is indeed 'just right' for our kind of life= . Does that have a deeper meaning, for instance a conscious choice picking those conditions that allow for humans? Does this provide a clue for faith in a creator intending humans to be?

In discussions on the universe there has been talk of 'anthropic principles'. The choice of terminology is problematic, for it is not specifically about a universe in which humans (Greek: anthropoi) can exist, but about a universe in which a planet such as ours with the right kind of materials has sufficient time to bring forth life through evolution. Thus, it might be more appropriate to speak of a 'biotic principle' rather than o= f an 'anthropic principle'.

Besides, humans also experience all kinds of misfortunes in this universe. A classic example is the buttered toasts falling upon the floor with the buttered side down. A colloquial expression for the pessimistic mood is Murphy's Law: If things can go wrong, they will. Careful analysis shows that the same conditions which allow for the emergence of human life, which optimists have appealed to in speaking of 'anthropic principles', are also those that make buttered toast fall from human tables upside down. Thus, perhaps there is an 'anthropomurphic principle' at work.

Upon closer inspection, we are not dealing with a well-defined 'principle', but rather with the realization that there might be a mix of circumstances hospitable to us. Thus, one might speak of 'biotic coincidences'. The question then is what significance might be attached to those biotic coincidences.

Perhaps it is a matter of selective observation. If we were to live in =
a train and look out of the window, we would notice that railroad barriers ar= e always closed. What a pity for those that stand waiting there; those cars will never get across. That is of course nonsense; we see closed barriers since we look at the world from within the train. That the conditions in ou= r part of the universe are just right for us could be a claim of a similar kind, a consequence of selective observation. Where and when the conditions are different, we will not be and hence we will not observe such regions.

Another possibility is that coincidences that seems as if they could have been different, will be shown to be a consequence of a further developed theory. Since the discussion on 'anthropic coincidences' emerged, this has happened already to some extent. A new model was proposed, the inflationary universe. According to this model, the early universe went through a phase of extremely fast expansion. This model combines well standard insights about matter and the Big Bang theory, and explains some features which are otherwise arbitrary, such as the homogeneity of matter and radiation in the observable universe - a feature previously object of explanations based on an 'anthropic principle'.

Thus, even with respect to properties of the Universe our puzzlement an= d our current questions may well be answered by future theories. At the same time, new questions emerge in the context of new theories. For instance, th= e inflationary model does not explain why the universe is such that inflation happens; some assumptions are always made. The reach of explanation is impressive, but explanatory successes do not exclude further questions. Again and again, questions emerge at the limits of scientific understanding= .

Questions remain even if physics and cosmology agree one day on a complete theory, a theory explaining all known phenomena in a unified, coherent way. Imagine, a single article, a single formula answering all our questions. Bu= t the article is on a piece of paper; the formula consists of symbols. Thus, there is no answer to the question: Why does reality behave as described here? It is as with a drawing of the Belgian artist Ren=E9 Magritte. It is a careful drawing of a pipe, a pipe used for smoking tobacco. Underneath it, he has written 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe' - 'This is not a pipe'. And he is right. It is an image of a pipe. One cannot fill the image with tobacco and if one would attempt to light the image, something else happens than when one lights a pipe. There is a difference between an image, how accurate it may be, and reality. This is also the case for a good scientific theory. However accurate the theory, the question remains why reality behaves as it does (and as described in the theory).

There is a traditional philosophical question: Why is there something rather than nothing? And there are similar philosophical questions that arise due to science, but are not answered by science. Why is mathematics s= o effective in describing reality? Why is reality such that we can work well with wrong, or at least incomplete theories? For this is our predicament, since we do not have a theory integrating quantum physics, gravity and space-time. It is a mistake to inflate problems and puzzles to mysteries, which would perhaps only be open to a religious answer. Such an approach would be forced into further retreats again and again. However, the success of science in solving puzzles and problems can itself evoke questions. How can science be so successful? What does that say about humans and about reality?

There are various ways of dealing with such persistent questions. It is tol= d that the American president Truman had a sign on his desk saying 'The buck stops here'. In a company or administration one can pass on hard decisions to persons higher up, but the president cannot avoid responsibility; he has to make a choice. Scientists, however, do not have to make a choice. They have to live with the insecurity of unanswered questions. A political decision or dogmatic answer is neither necessary nor adequate. Religious people do not have to cut this Gordian knot either. They ought to be willin= g to recognize that our explanatory quest is open ended. The physicist Charle= s Misner expressed this well:

"Saying that God created the universe does not explain either God or th= e Universe, but it keeps our consciousness alive to mysteries of awesome majesty that we might otherwise ignore, and that deserve our respect."

Perhaps we will never come to a final explanation. We always work within th= e limitations of our concepts and ideas and within the limitations of our existence. We never see the universe 'from outside', from the perspective o= f eternity, but always from within. That is also a problem when we speak of God; we are within the universe while we attempt to speak about something more encompassing. Our language about a 'beyond' need not be meaningless, but our theology does require agnostic restraint if we are not to fall into an arrogant and unwarranted religious certainty.

The more we know, the more we may become aware of the limitations of ou= r knowledge. De docta ignorantia (About learned ignorance) was the title of a book of Nicolas of Cusa, a cardinal in Europe in the fifteenth century. The scientific road to knowledge has shown itself to be very successful; we hav= e learned more than Nicolas of Cusa and his contemporaries might ever have expected. But that does not need to result in the arrogant conviction that we can explain everything without any residue. To the contrary; through science we are confronted with fundamental questions concerning the nature and ground of our reality. Why is there a reality? Why is reality the way i= t is? Thunder is no longer a voice of the gods, nor a mystery. But that does not exclude wonder regarding the reality of which both we and the thunderstorms are part. To the contrary, in the end existence remains a mystery.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science ". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Published   2001.12.18