The Creation of the World: The Crossroads between Theology and Science 25 June 2017
[Previous post: http://bit.ly/2sLJqL2]
Moreover, the truth is that the idea of creation from nothing had begun to gain ground in the mind of the scientific community, a concept that was clearly closer to a religious approach to things. Already a great figure in science in the 20th century, the physicist and philosopher of science, Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944), using a logic dependent probably on Occam’s razor, declared that the difficulties presented by a beginning (of the universe), are so insurmountable that they can be avoided only if we invoke a supernatural cause.
On the other hand, the scientific thinking which has revolved around the secular line in recent centuries has sought interpretations of things within the universe, without recourse to entities or principles outside the world. One such effort is the proposal of the so-called Anthropic Principle, according to which the universe evolved towards the creation of intelligent beings (although for some people the exact opposite is true: this particular proposal has a distinctly theological overtone). In another instance, Stephen Hawking attempts to find a detailed explanation of the obvious fact of creation through the idea of an overwhelming physical necessity, to which even a god/creator must, as a matter of course, submit.
It is certainly true that scientific thought has been particularly creative as regards putting forward proposals which overcome the metaphysical obstacles which arise from its findings. These proposals, at least those which involve theoretical consequences, await confirmation by observation. So far, the principles which have been proposed (creation without cause, random creation, indeterminacy and so on) seem not, at first reading, to be particularly troubling for the positivist-scientific way of thinking. On the contrary, their perspectives are rather interesting and acceptable for the solutions they offer to the impasse. In truth, however, they come into direct conflict with the norm of scientific reasoning as this is taught and has evolved- rather as though they’re returning to a point which they’d prefer to avoid.