Agnosticism
SIR,—The moving appeal made by Mrs. Doris Hodges on behalf of herself and all agnostics who think like her almost forces one to offer, If a sermon is impossible, at least the notes for one. May I try ?
Her primary quest is to discover " the nature of the force that first created the universe." Is there a benevolent planner behind it all ? And she thinks man " cannot find an answer that stands up to the scientific scrutiny of his twentieth-century mind." Just now I happen to have read again what 1 venture to think the most brilliant short answer given in this century. It is the address of Pius XII given on November 22nd, 1951, to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Science. It has recently been republished in English with a commentary under the title Modern Science and God, by P. J. McLaughlin, D.es Sc. (Burns Oates). From this the first part of my " notes " is taken. This Academy, which traces its origins from the earliest of modern scientific academies, draws its seventy Fellows from eminent men of science of all nations and religions. An example of the level of its work is the great "Spectral Atlas" of Gatterer and Junkes (1937-1951), published by the astrophysical laboratory of the Vatican observatory. It is clear that the Pope follows the progress of scientific research with intense personal interest and very accurate infognation. It was in another address to this Academy in 1943 that he gave the first public warning of the atomic bomb.
The opening paragraph addresses the scientists: "By your researches which unlock nature's secrets, and through your teaching, which leads man to direct the forces of nature towards his own welfare, you employ the language of number, formula and discovery to show forth the ineffable harmony of the works of an all-wise God." Since the scientific spirit demands facts. he proposes to re-examine, on the basis of new discoveries, the physical foundations of St. Thomas's famous "five ways" to demonstrate the existence of' God, which are based on concrete realities. He will take especially the "ways" based on change and order in nature.
While modern science has recognised the underlying unity and orderliness of the universe, physics have shown that macrocosm and .microcosm are subject to continual intra-atomic changes (which the Pope deals with at length), and thereby the old, over-simplified picture of indivisible atoms, taken as basis by materialistic monism, has been shattered. (And here he mentions the smashing and rebuiWing of nuclei as an "achievement which, in so far as it contributes to the cause of peace, is certainly worthy of record among the glories of our century.") Inorganic matter, therefore, is "counter-signed in its inmost being with thc stamp of 'mutability," and consequently, to explain it Drigin and existence, demands the _Eternal and Immutable Being:
"I am, Who am." Moreover, the Pope points to the philosophical implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the "Law of Entropy "), i.e. of the degradation of energy, from which, on the basis of present knowledge, there seems no escape. If the universe is running down, it must have had a beginning in time, with vast reserves of energy.
An outline is given of some of the methods used by astronomers and astro-physicists to answer the "extremely fascinating questions ": When did the universe begin, and what was its primitive state ? The study of the recession of spiral nebulae—the "expanding universe of the age of radio-active substances in rocks and in meteorites, and of the limits in the stability of stellar systems, lead to the view that
the cosmic processes may be said to have their beginning from five to ten " milliard " years ago—a conclusion in no way contrary to the statement that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." There are various views on the nature of primitive matter, but its density, pressure and temperature must have been utterly beyond anything we _know. What went before that ? The scientific mind is baffled, but nowadays feels impelled to abandon the notion of self-sufficient matter, and hand over to philosophy and revelation, which provide sure arguments for creation, and, in the case, of revelation, for creation in time. Fiat Lux ! Science, then, with the concreteness which belongs to physical proofs, has broadened and deepened the empirical foundations on which rest the arguments for the existence of God.
Here is the extreme limit of human reason. But one may add that, once the honest agnostic gets so far, he should enquire about the truth of revelation, which makes God's presence "immediate, vitalising and loving." He will find that the " wonders " on which the proofs of this revelation are securely based are not the " dreams " which 4Ars. Hodges fears, and have survived the most scientific scrutiny. But that needs another sermon !
May I add a little about the problem of evil, which "defeats every personal effort" of many agnostics to believe. It will help to state the problem correctly. It is not: If there is evil, there cannot be a good God. Often we can proceed along two lines of thought to two sure conclusions. It is hard to see how they are both true, but both are certain. In this case, reason can prove that there is a good God, and experience shows that evil (which is not however a positive entity but _ defect) exists. The problem is how to reconcile these two facts. We do not pretend to have a full answer in this lire, but there can be no answer without a future life, which must therefore be allowed as a hypothesis. Only then can suffering which seems "unfair and undeserved" (e.g. in the malformed child) be explained as not being the end but the beginning. The notion of reincarnation is philosophi- cally contradictory, and the data which lead people to postulate it are accounted for in the Christian doctrine of original sin.
These notes are most inadequate (cf. C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain), but they may point to the comfort,. and still more the truth, waiting to reward the agnostic who is ready to submit to truth when
Previous page
