Well I guess that’s the problem – we don’t know!
Once there was “something” then science does a really good of exploring, hypothesising and theorising about the nature and form of the universe.
High Energy Particle physics and Cosmology paint a rational picture of the seconds after the ‘Big Bang’
Physics and Mathematics can ‘model’ physical forces, matter and energy transitions
Geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics have great insights into the ‘how’ of planetary development
Biology and Evolution can explore and explain how ‘simple’ life became more and more complex
Ecology and Planetary Science can speak rationally about the interconnected nature of living systems
So what is left for God?
Evangelists will point to the fact that ‘science does not know everything’ – which is a crazy accusation in any case since science is about the process of discovery, testing claims, so in a sense ‘science shouldn’t KNOW anything’… Scientists work from testable assumptions, and hypotheses which are defined by application of what is known so they can extrapolate into areas of the ‘unknown’.
The evangelistic claims that science does not know everything is really a call for us to consider those areas where science and scientific questioning cannot (yet) be sensibly applied… for example ‘before there was anything’, if indeed if there was a ‘before’ anything.
The same evangelists will point to the idea that ‘evolution’ does not have a complete record of how ‘humans evolved from apes’ – despite the fact that such a claim displays a basic misrepresentation of evolutionary theory – whilst accusing ‘science’ of ‘changing its mind’ far too often and far too frequently.
Argggghhhh…. ‘science’ can not have a mind – science is a process.
Scientists change their opinions based upon new evidence and new questions… which is to their credit and celebrates the scientific method. I’d like to see the same thing to be said of the plethora of ‘paranormal investigators’, ‘psychic explorers’, ‘self-proclaimed parapsychologists’ and ‘complementary therapists’.
Listening to these ‘evangelical types’ we may well come to the conclusion that they are happy with a ‘God of the Gaps’ – a supreme being who is required to fill in the spaces left by humans intellectual and scientific endeavours.
Concepts of God are many and various, but there is the ‘general’ sense that God is…
All powerful, All Knowing, All Seeing and so on.
Of real relevance to many religions is the idea that God not only ‘created the universe’ and shaped life by ‘intelligent design’ but is also ever present and behaving like a watchful ‘father’ who chooses to intervene or not; heal or not; preserve or not; answer prayers or not; show ‘his’ mercy or not depending upon some inscrutable and un-knowable ‘will’.
Even if there needed to be a supreme being to ‘kick start’ the Big Bang this does not mean that that same being needs to maintain it, watch over it, support it.
If evolution is the way that God chose to ‘design life’ then where is the evidence of ‘design’? Something that has to be addressed unless you are a ‘young earth creationist’ who believes that God created the world around 6,000 years ago and apparently left all of the conflicting geological and biological evidence to ‘mislead’ the faithless.
In the absence of certainty there is room for speculation – it often seems to me that the ‘God of the Gap’ brigade flourish when there is uncertainty – both in terms of scientific exploration and social-emotional conflict. This latter point reflects in the upsurge of interest in spiritual and paranormal events/teachings during times of political, emotional, environmental uncertainty.
Wherever scientists question and find more questions is where you might find God.
NOW, before I get too many comments from ‘theists’ and other religious folk, what I am saying is that any concept of a supreme being and discussions about any role they may have does not really belong within a scientific discussion. It is the subject of Metaphysics (great word) and Philosophy – of ideas about how the universe ‘might work’ but currently fall outside the framework of scientific enquiry. Hence the need to know if we are talking Rationally (Scientifically) or Mystically (Metaphorically, Spiritually).
In practical terms, for example…
Evolution should be taught in schools as part of the science curriculum and creationism should be as part of the religious education/comparative religion/philosophical curriculum…
Metaphysical Ideologies need to be considered against a historical, cultural and contextual background…
Paranormal Investigations in order to be ‘investigative’ need to be placed outside of pre-exsiting spiritual ‘belief’ systems and look solely at ‘evidence’ or set out to test hypotheses.
Enough – far too much rambling again!
Alan
