God’s Universe

by Owen Gingerich, Peter J. Gomes (Foreword)

We live in a universe with a very long history, a vast cosmos where things are being worked out over unimaginably long ages. Stars and galaxies have formed, and elements come forth from great stellar cauldrons. The necessary elements are present, the environment is fit for life, and slowly life forms have populated the earth. Are the creative forces purposeful, and in fact divine?

Owen Gingerich believes in a universe of intention and purpose. We can at least conjecture that we are part of that purpose and have just enough freedom that conscience and responsibility may be part of the mix. They may even be the reason that pain and suffering are present in the world. The universe might actually be comprehensible.

Taking Johannes Kepler as his guide, Gingerich argues that an individual can be both a creative scientist and a believer in divine design―that indeed the very motivation for scientific research can derive from a desire to trace God’s handiwork. The scientist with theistic metaphysics will approach laboratory problems much the same as does his atheistic colleague across the hall. Both are likely to view the astonishing adaptations in nature with a sense of surprise, wonder, and mystery.

In God’s Universe Gingerich carves out “a theistic space” from which it is possible to contemplate a universe where God plays an interactive role, unnoticed yet not excluded by science.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Religion, Theology, Christian, Philosophy, Spirituality

160 pages, Hardcover

First published November 6, 2012

About the author

Professor Owen Gingerich was a US astronomer. He served at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and as Professor of Astronomy and History of Science at Harvard University. He held memberships with the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the International Academy of the History of Science. Gingerich published over 500 technical or educational articles and reviews, along with writing more popularly on astronomy and the history of astronomy in books, encyclopedias, and journals.

Gingerich taught at Harvard University until his retirement in 2000. He continues to be a widely recognized authority on the Renaisannce astronomers Johannes Kepler and Nicolaus Copernicus, and on the French astronomer Charles Messier.

Asteroid 2658: Gingerich, discovered on February 13, 1980, at the Harvard College Observatory, was named in his honor.

Reviews

[Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gingerich, professor of astronomy and professor of the history of science at Harvard University, and also an Anabaptist Christian, delivers an effective rebuke to the idea that science and religion are incompatible. This book may not provide any ideas not more fully developed elsewhere, but Gingerich's is an intelligent and reasoned voice, and his unique background combining an anabaptist (Amish) upbringing and value system with his scientific achievement in the academy makes him an interesting figure.

Gingerich holds the belief that the universe has been created and guided by an intelligence, God, and has a purpose. One source of support for this position comes from the amazing "fine tuning" of many cosmic conditions, any of which if different would have made impossible the development of life in the universe (see physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies' book "The Cosmic Jackpot).

An example: the balance between the outward expansion of energy and the inward pull of gravitational forces just after the Big Bang had to be accurate to within one part in 10 to the 59th power. A slight bit too much expansion would have left matter too widely dispersed to form galaxies, planets, intelligent beings, etc., and a slight bit too much gravitational pull would have collapsed the universe back on itself before these things could have developed. Were we just incredibly lucky that the balance happened to be just perfect to such an incredible degree for the eventual emergence of life? Or does this suggest some intelligence and purpose at work?

But although it makes more sense to Gingerich to view the universe as having a creative intelligence with purpose behind it, and he argues that the atheistic belief in a purposeless universe is a philosophical idea and not a scientific one, he is not trying to convert his atheistic colleagues in the scientific community. Rather he is arguing that both he, a believer in God, and his atheist colleagues will produce the same science regardless of their metaphysical positions on God and the cosmos.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had the immense good fortune to take a course under Professor Gingerich in 1969.

"Why is the water in the teakettle boiling? We can answer: "The water is boiling because the heat from the fire raises the temperature of the water until the molecules move faster and faster so that some escape from the surface and become a gas". But we can also answer that the water in the teakettle is boiling because we want some tea. The first answer illustrates what Aristotle called an efficient cause, an explanation of how the phenomenon takes place, while the second answer, "Because we want some tea", is a final cause, the reason the phenomenon takes place.

-----Owen Gingerich, from "God's Universe"

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

An attempt at reconciling science and religion

Gingerich, who is an astronomer and a historian of science, believes in intelligent design with a small "i" and a small "d"; but he doesn't think that intelligent design should be taught in the science classroom. He "believes" in Darwinian evolution up to a point, but not in the random or "accidental" appearance of life. He writes, "I am personally persuaded that a superintelligent Creator exists beyond and within the cosmos, and that the rich context of congeniality shown by our universe, permitting and encouraging the existence of self-conscious life, is part of the Creator's design and purpose." (p. 39)

What I wonder is what purpose God would have created us for. Most people when asked what is the purpose of their lives, answer to serve others, to help others, maybe even to be good stewards of this planet. But such a purpose comes down to God playing with himself (you should excuse the expression) and is no more meaningful that the Darwinian, "to reproduce." Both, like the "turtles all the way down" of some primitive cosmology, end eventually with no purpose left. Clearly this is why many people who believe in a personal God say that the purpose of their lives is to please God.

But why should God want to be pleased? Why would God need or desire to create beings whose purpose is to please Him? Such a God, upon reflection, becomes an anthropomorphic projection of human beings, endowed with human emotions and human psychology.

In the first chapter, "Is Mediocrity a Good Idea?" Gingerich argues against the Copernican principle of "mediocrity" in astronomy. The principle states that humans do not occupy a special place in the cosmos, that we are not at the center of the universe, and that things are pretty much the same (taken generally and in very large chunks) anywhere in the cosmos. This is de rigeur in physics of course, and seems a good idea in, say, astrobiology. But Gingerich opines that we are special and so is the universe that we occupy. He uses the now familiar argument that because the universe is so precisely balanced as to be favorable for life in a myriad of ways, this is a clear indication that divine guidance has been at work. If any of a number of factors in terms of the nature of the elements or the speed of the expansion of the universe, etc., had been off by just a bit, we would not be here. This couldn't happen by chance is Gingerich's conclusion.

Of course the answer to this is to invoke the anthropic principle and point out that the very fact that we are here necessitates a universe congenial with our being here! Another point to make is that had things been different, who is to say what kind of life might have evolved? When Gingerich speaks of "life" in this context he leaves out the very significant and necessary qualification "life as we know it." The universe could be "designed" in many different ways we know nothing about and still be hospitable to intelligent life. The fact that the universe is the way it is does not imply any tinkering by a supernatural being. Moreover, if there are an infinite number of universes comprising all possible configurations (about which we know nothing), then clearly one having our particular configuration is a cinch to be in existence.

In the second chapter Gingerich ask the provocative question, "Dare a Scientist Believe in Design?" He concludes that "just as I believe that the Book of Scripture illumines the pathway to God, I also believe that the Book of Nature...suggests a God of purpose and a God of design. And I think my belief makes me no less a scientist." (p. 79)

But the presumption of purpose and design is antithetical to scientific inquiry in the broadest sense. If we already hold it to be an article of faith that there is purpose and design, then we are practicing theology not science. Properly speaking science begins without preconceived ideas about what is true and what isn't and accepts only those findings that can be verified again and again, and at no time holds any discovery to be the final word. All science, as Gingerich agrees, is subject to falsification. His preconceived notion of purpose and design is not.

While Professor Gingerich insists on meaning and purpose in the universe, he doesn't say what that meaning or purpose might be. Several times he intimates that such things are beyond our ken. Appropriately enough the third and final chapter in this short, attractive book is entitled "Questions without Answers." The famous question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is posed but no attempt at an answer is made. It is the kind of question that can lead to enlightenment if meditated upon sufficiently. A possible and somewhat spooky answer is another question, How could "nothing" have meaning without "something"? Some people believe that such concepts are part of the apparent duality of our lives--things like pleasure and pain, good and evil, being and non-being--and may simply be conundrums imposed upon us by our limited logic.

Gingerich writes, "...rather than believe that the universe is simply meaningless, a macabre joke, I would prefer to accept a universe created with intention and purpose by a loving God...." (p. 96) Putting aside the false dilemma, might it be just as agreeable to realize that the universe exists in a way that is beyond our comprehension without implying anything that we should be uneasy with. Our notions of "meaning" and "purpose," like our physical and sensory abilities, are the products of our evolutionary experience and limited by that experience. We cannot see gamma rays or hear certain sounds because we have not had the evolutionary need for such ability. Probably it is the same for our limited understanding of "meaning" and "purpose."

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

IS THE UNIVERSE CREATED WITH “INTENTION AND PURPOSE”?

Owen Gingerich is Professor of Astronomy and the History of Science at Harvard. He wrote in the Prologue to this 2006 book, “The lectures that follow present a scientific tapestry of the physical world, but they also wrestle with the metaphysical framework within which the universe can be understood. They argue that the universe has been created with intention and purpose, and that this belief does not interfere with the scientific enterprise… [The lectures] presented in this volume are a work in progress… Assembled in these lectures are reflections and insights gathered along the pilgrimage trail, some that I came upon decades ago, others as fresh as yesterday.” (Pg. 6-7)

He recalls, “We were a religious family. My father’s four great-grandfathers were all Amish ministers, and we stayed within an Anabaptist tradition that emphasized believer’s (i.e., adult) baptism and the pacifist ideals of the Sermon on the Mount… I entered graduate school in astronomy. But my interests were never limited to astronomy. I audited courses in physics and geology… I became increasingly curious about the fundamental way that science worked, its claims to truth, and the relation of those claims to religious belief.” (Pg. 2-3)

He notes, “the time is finally ripe for the discovery of extraterrestrial signals… we have attained an understanding of the nature and place of distant stars, along with knowledge of how to send or receive signals across vast distances… The idea that intelligent beings might be out there is not particularly new… Now in a new millennium, we have learned of many other far-flung celestial worlds that are potential homes for extraterrestrial life… We have every reason to believe that planets circle many of these distant stars… and given the wealth of possibilities, countless habitable environments must be scattered throughout the starry realms… Theologically, the way has been open to consider the possibility of extraterrestrial life ever since the bishop of Paris declared that it was heretical to limit to just the earth God’s power to create life… Whether or not God would have chosen to create intelligent life elsewhere was another question, and most churchmen thought not. Today, at least, we have the possibility of putting that question to rest.” (Pg. 26-29)

He says, “I have outlined … two remarkable conclusions… The first conclusion is that human beings are astonishingly well constructed within the framework of possibilities and that the cosmic environment in general and the earth’s environment in particular are themselves wonderfully congenial to intelligent, self-conscious life. The second conclusion… is that intelligent, self-conscious life was not necessarily inevitable in our planetary system and, by extension, is not necessarily inevitable elsewhere.” (Pg. 32)

He clarifies, “‘Design’ should not necessarily be taken to mean the detailed working out of a preordained pattern. A combination of contingency and natural selection can produce organisms exquisitely attuned to their environment… But contingency and natural selection do not create the extraordinary physical and chemical conditions … that permit the existence of such marvels.” (Pg. 37)

He states, “today we hear little about origin science. Meanwhile, a new generation has reclothed some of these ideas and presented them under the rubric ‘Intelligent Design.’ Citing some of the same bits of evidence that impress me, about the remarkable hospitality of our universe as a home for intelligent life… the Intelligent Design theorists press the case still further and argue that some evolutionary steps make sense only when taken as a large bundle, a form of macroevolution… It would strain credulity that all the required proteins could assemble at once by blind chance, the ID theorists declare… My theological presuppositions incline me to be sympathetic to this point of view, to the idea of a God who acts in the world. I believe… in a… universe designed to be astonishingly congenial to intelligent life… In a word, I believe in intelligent design, lower case ‘I’ and lower case ‘d.’ But … Intelligent Design… is being sold as a political movement, as if somehow an alternative to Darwinian evolution. Evolution today is an unfinished theory. There are many questions about details… but those are not grounds for dismissing it.” (Pg. 67-69)

He summarizes, “Without knowing quite what the purpose of the universe is, we can at least conjecture that somehow we are part of that purpose, and that perhaps understanding the universe is a part of that purpose. In that case, the universe might just be comprehensible because it is part of its purpose to be so. This, I would argue, is the route toward understanding some deep mysteries; and rather than believe that the universe is simply meaningless… I would prefer to accept a universe created with intention and purpose by a loving God, and perhaps created with just enough freedom that conscience and responsibility are part of the mix. They may even be part of the reason that pain and suffering are also present in a world with its own particular integrity. This, for me, is God’s universe.” (Pg. 96)

He suggests, “Perhaps the most important verse of the first chapter of Genesis is the statement, ‘God created man in his own image, male and female created he them.’ What are these God-given attributes? I would suggest creativity, conscience, and consciousness… And the story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil surely describes the quintessential step toward becoming human, the origin of conscience; it was the fall into freedom… the ability to make wrong choices and the self-consciousness to recognize wrong choices.” (Pg. 107)

He concludes, “I have been thinking about questions without answers with increasing frequency over the past twenty-five years, and I believe I have caught glimpses of some of the answers, which I have shared with you… Nor can I exclude the possibility that I might have even more insight if I were resident in another place, that mysterious somewhere vaguely known as the hereafter. Whether I will enjoy that vantage point is another deep question with no answer.” (Pg. 112)

This book will be of keen interest to those looking for scientific perspectives on such issues.

[Jocelyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Owen Gingerich had a distinguished career as an astronomer at Harvard. I heard him lecture in 2009. I finally got around to reading his book. He has an interesting premise: that "science works within a constrained framework" of reason and observation; hypothesis and data. Science offers "naturalistic explanations" that "do not explicitly require the hand of God. This does not mean that the universe is actually godless, just that science within its own framework has no other way of working" (pp. 6-7).

[Zach Waldis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nice, short reflection on science and theology. Gingerich shows an admirable amount of humility in his thoughts on whether the two fields are compatible, which I commend.

[Icynda · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was GREAT! I love the mixing of faith and science (especially since GOD encompasses science). I definitely suggest to read this.

[Sorin · Rating 3 out of 5]

H • R60

Owen Gingerich este un astronom și istoric al științei, cunoscut pentru cercetările sale în domeniul științei și religiei. În lucrarea sa, el abordează întrebarea despre cum poate fi înțeleasă existența unui Dumnezeu creator într-un univers guvernat de legi naturale, în contextul descoperirilor științifice moderne.

Iată câteva dintre punctele cheie din „Universul lui Dumnezeu”:

1. Compatibilitatea între știință și religie

Gingerich promovează ideea că știința și religia nu sunt în conflict, ci mai degrabă se completează reciproc. El argumentează că, în timp ce știința oferă explicații despre cum funcționează universul, religia se ocupă de întrebările despre „de ce” există universul și despre scopul acestuia. Gingerich consideră că înțelegerea științifică a universului nu anulează ideea unui Creator divin, ci poate duce la o apreciere mai profundă a măreției și complexității creației.

2. Universul ca loc al revelației divine

În viziunea lui Gingerich, universul nu este doar un mecanism fizic guvernat de legi naturale, ci și un loc în care Dumnezeu își poate revela natura și prezența. El susține că legile naturale care guvernează cosmosul sunt, de fapt, o reflectare a ordinii divine. Așadar, Dumnezeu poate fi înțeles nu doar ca un creator, dar și ca o forță activă care susține și menține ordinea universului, iar studiul științific al acestuia poate fi văzut ca o formă de a descoperi semne ale divinității.

3. Perspectiva teologică asupra cosmosului

Gingerich explorează ideea că universul, așa cum este el cunoscut prin știință, are un scop și un sens din punct de vedere religios. El este de părere că structura și complexitatea universului, cum ar fi finețea constantelor fizice, sugerează un proiect divin. În această viziune, universul nu este doar un accident sau un fenomen aleatoriu, ci o creație divină ordonată care reflectă intenția unui Creator.

4. Teologia și Big Bang-ul

Un punct esențial al lucrării lui Gingerich este reconcilierea teologiei cu teoriile științifice moderne, cum ar fi teoria Big Bang-ului. El subliniază că, deși Big Bang-ul descrie originea fizică a universului, nu înseamnă că Dumnezeu nu a avut un rol în crearea acestuia. Dimpotrivă, Gingerich sugerează că teologia poate adăuga o dimensiune spirituală și semnificație procesului de creație, interpretând Big Bang-ul nu doar ca un eveniment fizic, ci și ca o manifestare a unui act divin de creație.

5. Importanța studierii științei pentru credință

Gingerich încurajează o abordare în care credința și știința sunt văzute ca două căi complementare de înțelegere a realității. El consideră că studiul științei poate duce la o apreciere mai profundă a măreției universului și poate întări credința religioasă, oferind un sens mai adânc pentru complexitatea și ordinea lumii naturale. Astfel, el argumentează că știința nu trebuie să fie văzută ca o amenințare la adresa credinței religioase, ci ca o cale de a înțelege mai bine lucrarea lui Dumnezeu în lume.

Concluzie

În „Universul lui Dumnezeu”, Owen Gingerich subliniază compatibilitatea dintre credința religioasă și cercetările științifice, sugerând că universul nu este doar un mecanism aleatoriu, ci o creație divină ordonată care poate fi studiată și apreciată atât prin știință, cât și prin religie. Gingerich promovează o viziune integrată, în care Dumnezeu și știința coexistă armonios, fiecare având rolul său în explicarea misterelor lumii și ale universului.

[Angie Kennedy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I checked this out at work after reading Dr. Gingerich's obituary in the New York Times. I cannot lie, a lot of the discussion in this transcription of his Harvard lecture series went over my head. That was not necessarily his fault, as I find he writes in a fairly accessible style. I will have to borrow "God's Planet" through interlibrary loan later on.

[Olive Chelsea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very intriguing, very thought-provoking

[Voyt · Rating 5 out of 5]

"HOW?" vs. "WHY?" - an important difference.
POSTED BY ME AT AMAZON 2007
"God's Universe" is mostly (but not exclusively) about cosmic theology. As a true Christian, Professor Gingerich neither attacks viciously nor tries to ridicules "godless" boffins. He writes to them not to be so cocky. There is no need to write voluminous and often exhausting scientific book in order to successfully counter fundamental atheists. In this short but quite convincing treatise Gingerich decisively defends Christian scientists and their rights to believe in the beginning, design and cosmic purpose. He presents just several stunning facts/cases discovered by science of genetics and astronomy and this is enough for educated and intelligent reader to take a deep breath. "Why" (rather than "how?") do we have such perplexing coincidence and tuned up properties around us? Has science found God? Fact is: NO. But Gingerich states it is not a science role - science cannot replace metaphysics. Together with Alister McGrath's "Dawkins' God" this text represents well constructed message to all who treat science as a religion.

[David Dunlap · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author asks these questions: Is mediocrity a good idea? Dare a scientist believe in design? How do we deal with questions that have no answers? He comes down on the side of reconciling his belief in God as the designer/sustainer of the universe and his work as a scientist. -- I found this book fleetingly interesting, but I discover I haven't the mind for this sort of thing any more...if, indeed, I *ever* did...

[Arnold Sikkema · Rating 4 out of 5]

For my astronomy class at Trinity Western University this fall, I am assigning this book as a supplement to a standard stellar and galactic text. It is a delightful account of the perspective of this devout Mennonite, recounting episodes from his childhood interest in the heavens to his work as astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Gingerich brings in the poetry of Chaucer, Hopkins, Whitman as well as the writings of Kepler (including several prayers), Copernicus, Kant, Paley, Einstein, Hoyle, Dawkins. He ably portrays the universe from atomic nuclei to DNA to galaxies as suggesting a God of purpose and design (though keeping distance from ID). One difficulty I had with the book was the notion also found (among others) in Polkinghorne that the Fall was a fall “upwards” into self-consciousness rather than what I consider the Biblical notion of a first disobedience of God’s command in the Garden; on Gingerich’s reading, which he does not support convincingly, the fall is a good thing. Still, this book form of his 2005 William Belden Noble lectures at Harvard is highly recommended. Incidentally, the book was reviewed in the March 2008 issue of PSCF, and I echo reviewer Dave Fisher’s concluding remark, “This book deserves to become a classic.”

[Shahidur Sikder · Rating 2 out of 5]

From the time of the very auspicious inception of the civilization, mankind is continuing to find out the correct answer to the question about universe creation or creator. Aborigines have taking up the considerations of the causes by religious thoughts in different ways as consolations as there was no practical answer or solutions to the questions.

As a result of the present situation, it became possible to find out the correct solutions to the questions about Universe creation or creator through that 21st century of discovered fundamental Universal Rule and evolution revolution of physics. Possibility, swiftly finds out most important answering of the questions to help people find a place and their role of the Universe.

God, the Universe & Everything Else- See Vision- The Universe & Our Place in its Midst- Universal Rule- www.universalrule.info
See into- My Blogs- https://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpres...
New Discovery of the Universe: can be found at http://lnkd.in/Sn6wPK
See How is our Universe, Final https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYcnb...

Shahidur Rahman Sikder
Digital Universe, 42/2 Mosque Goli, East Shah Ali Bag, Mirpur-1, Dhaka-1216, BD

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

An anabaptist as well as a Harvard astronomy professor provides the rational voice the faith community needs against an ever growing tide of secularism, who place their own "faith" in science without understanding its limitations. As a theistic evolutionist, however, Gingerich is not necessary a champion of all believers, although he has a following here. It is unavoidable for a person to ask, however, why being an astronomy professor gives Gingerich a position of authority of stating what reality is. That question can also be posed to the stellar athiests as well, e.g. Richard Dawkins. Ultimately, we're all short of having any sort of authority, aren't we?

[Anton Dubrovskiy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dr. Gingerich is a classical proponent of Theistic Evolution. Although reviews of this book claim his respect for other theories, I'm not as sure about this quality of this undoubtedly highly intelligent person. He is quite certain about evolution (sometimes directed, sometimes not), about a billions-years-old universe and quite certain that other people are wrong if they think otherwise.

There are some curious thoughts and stories about scientists (mostly, astronomers). Not much if anything is said about God's relationship with us, but a lot of what scientists can find in this sophisticated and yet beautifully organized universe.

[Eppursimuov3 · Rating 4 out of 5]

God’s Universe is a very short introduction on the subject of science and faith. It is based on a series of lectures given by Owen Gingerich, a former Professor of Astronomy and Science History at Harvard University. In these very accesible lectures, he talks about the different layers of truth occupied by science and religion on physical and metaphysical levels of understanding. He differentiates Intelligent Design (with caps) from intelligent design, rejecting the former while showing his reasons for believing in the latter through a discussion on the fine-tuning of the universe.

[Lou · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un buen libro, El Astrónomo Emérito, realiza un análisis sobre la controversial relación histórica entre ciencia-creencia en Dios. En un análisis intelectualmente honesto y razonable encuentra un punto de partida desde el cual el desarrollo de ambas no interfiere, ni contradice, ni limita a una o la otra.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This brief volume contains 3 lectures given at Harvard in 2006. The author explains in impressive detail how he can be both a scientist and Christian believer and how he believes in intelligent design without all the baggage of Intelligent Design theory. For those like who believe in both science and faith it is a worthwhile read.

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book, written by a physicist and astronomer and practicing Christian, deals with the connection between science and faith. The book was readable and interesting, but I didn't think that it broke any new ground.

[Theresa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Up-to-date, elegantly presented demonstration that science and faith are not in contention with each other.
Gingerich, a scientist, makes many nice distinctions as to which questions belong to science, which to philosophy, which to faith.

[Brett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of great arguments, but I expect I was looking for more. At points it came across like a series of references rather than commentary, so it bogged for me at those times. Still, the lack of mass five in the big bang seemed to be the most profound revelation, for me anyway.

[Nickvisel · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read. It lends a sympathetic view towards evolutionary atheists, and seems to advocate theistic evolutionism but seems to use too little bible to back it convincingly. Does give some good credit to God as is due in the creativity evident in the universe, however.