SHOW ME GOD:
WHAT THE MESSAGE FROM SPACE IS TELLING US ABOUT GOD
Fred Heeren (Searchlight Publications, Wheeling IL, 1995).
387 pages. ISBN 1-885849-51-6. $19.95 hardcover.
It is too bad that this volume, the first in a series titled
"Wonders That Witness", carries the subtitles that it
does. Despite the author's own claim to be skeptical
believer, his repeatedly stated purpose of proving the Bible's
fundamental compatibility with modern science is very much
apt to turn off anyone who is the least bit skeptical about
religion's claims to begin with.
That would be a shame, because Heeren proves himself a very
articulate observer of contemporary cosmology and a very
intuitive interpreter of the theological implications that flow
from it. His exposition is logical and clear-cut, and best of
all, he frequently lets the scientists speak for themselves.
For example, the end of his excellent chapter on "The Big Bang",
which covers all the main points of the theory and its
variations, Heeren gives us three telling quotes. The first of
these, from Sir Arthur Eddington, states that following Hubble's
discoveries and Friedmann's and LeMaitre's revolutionary new
theory, "Religion first became possible for a reasonable man of
science in the year 1927." Then we have COBE project director
George Smoot's statement that following the confirmation of
minute variations in the cosmic radiation background, "The
question of 'the beginning' is as inescapable for cosmologists as
it is for theologians." Finally, we have astronomer Robert
Jastrow who, even as an agnostic, claims that "the essential
element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is
the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly
and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light
and energy."
Yet this impressive succession of quotes shows both the strength
as well as the weakness of the author's technique. Eddington's
opinion, as valuable as it is, (as well as Heeren's book, despite
its appendix of believing scientists) unaccountably ignores the
fact that LeMaitre also happened to be a Catholic priest -- and
hence open to suspicion as a believer -- long before he
articulated what Hoyle derisively called the "The Big Bang".
Then too, while Smoot's microwave background measurements may
have decisively cinched the argument for an inflationary Big
Bang, does the theory unequivocally point (as the author implies)
to a "creation from nothing" in the strictest sense of the term?
Finally, despite my appreciation of Jastrow's forthrightness, I
would strongly question the conclusion that all this establishes
that the "essential elements on the astronomical and biblical
accounts in Genesis is the same..."
As a theologian I have two problems in particular with that last
statement. First is the assumption the Bible essentially
concerned at all with how the universe actually came to be.
Heeren would perhaps have been wiser, among his many quotes, to
have recalled the pun (which translates quite well from the
Latin) of Cardinal Baronius, who was the Vatican librarian around
the time of Galileo: that "the Bible was written to tell us how
to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (Too bad the rest of
the Vatican wasn't listening!)
My second problem is with the assumption that the Genesis
"accounts" (and there are two of them) do in fact teach the more
or less the same thing. And furthermore, that the accounts
themselves prove (as Heeren repeats several times) that only the
Hebrews, among all ancient peoples, got the concept of "creation
from nothing" right from the beginning, is a bit too sweeping.
In fact, the oldest of these biblical creation stories (that
which begins with Genesis 2:5) seems to assume the earth is
already there, while the newer one (the "priestly" revision found
in Genesis 1-2:4, which is hardly the oldest part of the Bible)
while it uses a unique verb ("bara") to denote God's creative
activity, also still seems to assume that there already
was something (the "tohu w'bahu" -- a trackless waste or
emptiness) on which God was already working. Nor do early Jewish
creeds or commentaries stress creation from nothing in the
technical sense.
I point out these problems because, as one very much concerned to
see a real collaboration between cosmologists and theologians, I
think it is not wise for the latter (or for Christian believers
in general) to pin all their arguments on what is essentially a
philosophical interpretation of scripture, no matter how
long-standing that interpretation may have been. In fact, the
author himself warns believers against this tendency. The
problem is that, ignoring a broader variety of biblical as well
as philosophical interpretations, he doesn't always follow his
own advice.
Unfortunately, in his discussion of the so-called "anthropic
principle" in his chapter on "Evidence of Design" this same
limitation shows itself -- along with a more disturbing tendency
to engage in ridicule. Even worse, by confusing only one
interpretation (the "Many Worlds theory") of the "strong
anthropic principle" with the others, he unwittingly undermines
his own position, which one would expect would favor what appears
to be a cosmic "plan" or "intelligence". On the other hand,
Heeren also seems to leave no creative role to chance. These may
seem to be minor points, but I would double these words of
caution when it comes to Heeren's intended second volume
regarding geology and the theory of evolution. Such oversights
could be counterproductive to the author's aims. Nevertheless,
I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who has an open
mind, and I congratulate Heeren for his untiring work. It
deserves to be more widely read than it probably will be.
RICHARD W. KROPF
Kropf is the author of several books, two of them on religion and
evolution and another on the psychology of religion.
