This blog post from Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman has been visualized by Zander Harpel, a first-year student at Hamilton College.
For some religious people, a scientific argument called “fine-tuning” helps them make the case for God.
Indeed, a few years ago, author Eric Metaxas wrote a very popular piece for the Wall Street Journal with that title, saying that the parameters for human life are so precise that they are indicators of God’s existence. As he phrases it,
At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
A fine-tuned universe is a compelling argument for God, but it’s also deeply problematic.
Why? For two reasons.
First, science is always changing.
Science is in constant flux. New discoveries are made. New insights arise. New paradigms overturn previous ways of thinking. So if we base our religious outlook on scientific findings, what will happen to our theology when the science changes?
Think about what happened to religion when the Copernican revolution occurred, or when Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published. They forced religion to change. Most people either denied these findings and held onto their deeply-held beliefs, or used these findings to reject religion entirely.
So what would happen if, say, we discover that the parameters for life are not quite as amazing as they seemed? Or if we discovered that humanity was not unique in the universe? If you were using science to support your religious outlook, unless you have a very sophisticated theology, you’d be in deep trouble, and would need to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics.
That’s why scientists and Christians Francis Collins and Karl Giberson warn about using fine-tuning as an argument for God. As they say,
Yes, it truly is amazing that all of the needed requirements for life on earth are so precise. But science is a search for an accurate understanding of our world, which means that it can change. And if we’re basing our view of God on the latest scientific research, we’re going to have a very fragile theology.
The second reason this is problematic is that science and religion are two different ways of thinking, and we shouldn’t conflate them.
Using science to prove God’s existence confuses two very different ways of thinking. Science is a search for truth, while religion is really a search for meaning.
As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks puts it:
There is absolutely nothing in science to suggest that the universe is bereft of meaning, nor could there be, since the search for meaning has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religion. (The Great Partnership: Science, Religion and the Search for Meaning, 25, 27)
In other words, religion doesn’t need science to prove God’s existence, because the question of God is not a scientific one.
Science is the best method we have for understanding how we got here. But religion isn’t science. It is not (or at least shouldn’t be) about provable or disprovable claims, because that’s not its purpose. Instead, it should be designed to help us improve ourselves and our world, here and now.
For me, as I look out at the universe, I am in complete awe of the fact that we are living here on this earth. But that awe wouldn’t change for me if the parameters for life are actually one in a hundred rather than one in a septillion.
Instead, I am guided by the words of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who said “Just to be is a blessing. Just to live is holy.”
I know that no matter what new scientific findings arise, I will never be able to prove it. Science won’t help make that case for me. But that’s OK. Because the most important thing is that I try to live it.
So, when someone asks , “Do you believe in God?” I usually respond to that question with “what is God to you? How do you define “God” In this essay it seems to be “intelligence” as opposed to random incidents that created life. Is that right?
How do you respond to that question?
I actually think the better question is, “When is God?” Can you share a moment when you felt awe / wonder / divinity? I don’t actually believe that an intelligence force created us, but that we can discover moments of connection and Godliness when we learn more about our universe.
Good points, but I am left with disappointment. In religion, truth does not matter. If one finds meaning and a fulfilling way of life, then the ultimate truth of what one believes in one’s religion does not matter. This does not sit well with me. It smacks of “ignorance is bliss” and “emotions trump reason.” I believe that the question of God’s existence is in the purview of science. It may be quite some time before science achieves that, but I believe that it will achieve it. “If it feels good, believe it” is not an axiom for rational living. One can love, be awestruck, be compassionate, and inspired even if God does not exist.
In my opinion, the essence of this discussion hinges on one’s understanding of Truth and Faith and the role that both play in science and religion. The conflation of scientific “truth” and religious “truth” is extremely problematic, in common parlance since it confuses fact with faith. For the purposes of the article it seems that, scientific “truth” is based on perpetually reassessing facts to refine our knowledge (and sometimes completely revise what we understand) of the universe; and religious “truth” is a “leap of faith” that enables one to believe certain eternal truths about the universe. Religious “truth” can be more comforting to many since it is unchanging and unchallengeable foundation for understanding the unknowable: this seems particularly true in Christianity when Jesus states that he is “the way, the truth…” One can find it extremely challenging to justify scientific truth with new facts and amended theories in the face of eternal truths arrived at through unreasoned experience or the charisma of faith. In religion, faith in specific eternal truths are far more important than experimental proof, reasoned observation or mathematical accuracy. “One can love, be awestruck, be compassionate, and inspired even if God does not exist” but if one has faith, these can become connections to the “Devine.”
Geoffrey:
Thank you for this helpful article. I would just add that the relationship to God is more than a feeling. In Buber’s terms, the Biblical God is a Person Who is known in an I-Thou relationship. Nature is an “It” that the scientist knows through an I-It relationship. (Jeremiah 31:34).
Therefore people, whether scientists or not, must still know God through faith. No amount of evidence can be sufficient by itself to bring one to a personal encounter with the Biblical God. Therefore all the efforts of “natural theology” to demonstrate or prove God’s existence are futile or worse. As currently evident as fine-tuning is, as evident as the Big Bang singularity is, these discoveries alone are not sufficient to introduce a person to God. So God has apparently created a universe in which evidence for God can be discovered, but that evidence alone is never sufficient to compel the conclusion that God exists. There is always a free choice held out; faith is neither compelling nor impossible.