Book Review: God and the Astronomers

The following is my review of the book, God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow.

"When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues assume that he is over the hill or going bonkers." That is the beginning of a brief book about some observations/discoveries in the world of Astronomy written by a professed agnostic.

My initial interest in this book was two fold - 1. obviously the spiritual perspective was of concern. 2. Modern mathematics (esp. calculus and successive realms of study) are very firmly rooted in astronomy or come from those who had a strong inclination for both areas of discussion. In addition to these two items, we are currently involved in a study of apologetics in one of our sunday morning classes and I wondered what light this might shed on some of our discussions.

On the latter two fronts, this book was fairly informative. The former point was really only addressed (to any real intellectual level) in two "appendices" by commentators who wished to share a few thoughts based on the data layed out in the heart of this book.

The majority of the text looks at a brief history of astronomy and its connections both with the spiritual and arcane. Both Newton and Leibniz are cited as having great interest and making advances in astronomy while simultaneously involving themselves in investigations of the spiritual construction of the universe and how we relate to God and devoting attention to alchemy and astrology. Throughout history, it has been rare that one would look to the stars and not be prompted to think of a higher being (primarily God, lately "extra terrestrial life"). Just as biologists look to explain the origins of life, Astronomers frequently have studied what is transpiring in our universe. This resulted in theories proposed early in the 20th century (or at the end of the 19th) that caused much debate (especially with physicists such as Einstein) that pointed to the universe having an absolute beginning. With progressing technology, these theories have been all but codified and are accepted almost universally in both astronomical and physics circles. The only remaining point of contention is whether the "big bang" was an absolute beginning or a relative beginning.

Those in the absolute camp propose God as the prime cause. In the relative camp, the suggestion proposed is that the universe is constantly expanding, then contracting upon itself (explosion and implosion) over a great period of time. This view holds that we are simply in the midst of this process repeating itself over and over.

Also, descriptions (moderately technical, but not beyond anyone who completed a few intermediate high school science courses) of the varying methods of investigation and their progressive refinement are offered. This lends credence to the claims that are put forth in a clearly understandable way.

That is the meat of the book in a nutshell.

The main problem that I have is that the idea is proposed that the universe is ~10-15 billion years old and the earth is about 4.3 billion. Included in this assumption is that general evolution IS an accepted fact. God created Adam complete and fully developed. Why should we not believe that He created the heavens in a similar state (with light from stars billions of miles away already brightening our night time sky)? The answer is a simple one, in my mind.

What I found most interesting were a few of the quotes contributed at the end of the book of which I will share a few here.
This first set of quotes are by Dr. John A. O'Keefe of NASA (a catholic by profession).
On the question of our universe as happenstance or intention:

"We are, by astronomical standards, a pamered, cossetted, cherished group of creatures; our Darwinian claim to have done it all ourselves is as ridiculous and as charming as a baby's brave efforts to stand on his own feet and refuse his mother's hand. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the Universe was created for man to live in."(p118)

The impact of some of these advances in regarding the universe:

"...I think that the confirmation that the Universe was created at a dfinite time in the past, and that we see no reasonable prospect of explaining the Creation in natural terms, will be seen by many people as a starting-point for faith."(p119)

From Professor Steven T. Katz, Department of Religion, Cornell University (jew)
On the independence from observation of the beginning:

"...the notion of creation does not properly belong to the scientific vocabulary, which deals in causal connections and is premised on the assumption that causality operates everywhwere and over everything. Whether or not the Big Bang cosmology complements or parallels the Genesis account, it does reinforce an overriding consideration: to talk of creation is to point to another category of reality, requiring at least an openness to other than narrolwy scientific questions, and even more important, an openness to other than narrowly positivistic answers."(p133)

On evolution's failure to define the "why" of things:

"The basis for disagreement is not the conflict of evolution with a literal reading of Genesis, but rather the evolutionist's denial of teleology, i.e., the denial of purpose in and through nature, and purposeful movement in and through history, toward some end or goal. While evolution argues for the random, purposeless nature of natural selection, this argument only describes specific events, whether mutations or reproductions, within history and nature. It does not offer evidence for or against the purposeful ordering of nature and history as wholes."(p137)

Why this all boils down to "faith" on both sides:

"We must, however, recognize that teleology is a metaphysical concept whose ultimate reality cannot be affirmed or denied on the basis of empirical or scientific evidence. Despite scientific claims to the contrary, the destiny or meaning of the human race, and of the cosmic order, cannot be ascertained by a study of discrete biological or historical events. It is no more logical to argue the world has no ultimate cause or purpose than to argue that it does - in both cases the empirical or scientific evidence for deciding the matter is inadequate."(p138)

Consequently, we will never be able to "prove God" (theory, prop. 1, prop. 2, prop. 3, Q.E.D.). But with the beauty and power we see as we examine the universe and the world around us, it is difficult to draw another conclusion than that there IS a God and that He put all of this together.

Overall, if you're not terribly interested in astronomy, this will be quite a dry read (though a relatively quick one). My final suggestion is to get it from the library (as I did), read through it, and if you find it to be a valuable reference, buy it used.