Owen Gingerich is Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and of the History of Science at Harvard University and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. He is also a Mennonite. His book, God’s Universe, consists of three talks he delivered at Harvard in 2005 during the William Beldon Noble Lectures. They provide a thoughtful and compelling model for distinguishing and integrating science and faith.

Physics and Metaphysics

Gingerich believes “that the universe has been created with intention and purpose, and that this belief does not interfere with the scientific enterprise” (7). The reason: science works well with physics, but has no authority in the field of metaphysics. He writes,

Science works within a constrained framework in creating its brilliant picture of nature. But reality goes much deeper than this. Scientists work with physics, but (perhaps unwittingly) they also have a broader system of beliefs, metaphysics, a term that literally means “beyond physics.” (6)

Put simply, science is uniquely suited to explain how things work (efficient causes), though not necessarily why they work (final causes). (95)

To illustrate the difference between these two domains, Gingerich considers a simple question posed by Sir John Polkinghorne: “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. (12)

As a scientist interested in both the how and the why, Gingerich admits his belief in God:

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. (39)

He spends the rest of the book describing how this belief informs and interacts with his scientific research.

Divine Design

Gingerich believes that the universe has been designed (or better, “fine-tuned”) for life. He believes in design with a small “d”. “‘Design’ should not necessarily be taken to mean the detailed working out of a preordained pattern… [It is more] like a giant and very complex Lego set supplied without a blueprint. There may be no architect with a plan for the final product, but there is the designer of the set of little interlocking parts. And the existence of the set itself cries out for something to be built with it” (37).

Gingerich is careful to note that his belief in divine design is based on metaphysical reasoning and not scientific research: “‘Is the universe designed?’ is not a scientific question, pace the Intelligent Design enthusiasts” (70). He readily admits that this question “is one without answer in the scientific sense. It is a metaphysical question, whose answer will come only out of metaphysical reasoning” (70).

As an example of this fine-tuning, he identifies “one of the most astonishing features of [the Big Bang]” which is

the incredible balance between the outward energy of expansion and the gravitational forces trying to pull everything back together again. Because in the expansion itself any slight imbalance in either direction would be hugely magnified, the initial balance had to be accurate to about one part in 10⁵⁹ —a ratio of 1 to 1-followed-by-fifty-nine-zeros, an unimaginably large number. Had the original energy of the Big Bang explosion been less, the universe would have fallen back in on itself long before there was time to build the elements required for life and to produce from them intelligent, sentient beings. Had the energy been greater, it is quite likely that the density, and hence the gravitational pull, of matter would have diminished too swiftly for stars and galaxies to form. The balance between the energy of expansion and the braking power of gravitation had to be extraordinarily exact—to such a degree that it seems as if the universe must have been expressly designed for humankind. This is the classic example of what astrophysicists and cosmologists refer to as fine-tuning, and at that point the universe was fine-tuned indeed. If you are looking for design, how about this? Surely a beneficent Creator was at work to produce a universe fit for intelligent life! (49-50)

Though his concluding sentence might come off as overly confident (perhaps he should have written, “This convinces me that a beneficent Creator…” instead of “Surely”), he is careful to distinguish his physics work from his metaphysical perspective. His belief in design does not negate the importance of scientific research. “Essentially, scientists’ quest takes place in the realm of efficient causes. Thus, much as I might believe that the universe is best understood in terms of intelligent design, I don’t think that would get a spacecraft to Mars or explain how the laser in the grocery store checkout line works. As a scientist I accept methodological naturalism as a research strategy” (73).

A Finely-Tuned Universe

Gingerich summarizes his perspective in one beautiful paragraph:

It is that still, small voice, arising from a sense of awe and wonder and reverence, that can point us toward some tentative insights into these questions without answers. Without quite knowing 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 such deep mysteries; and 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, 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 peculiar integrity. This, for me, is God’s universe. (96)

With confidence in his metaphysical view of God, he is quick to admit the limitations of this perspective on his scientific work:

But my subjective, metaphysical view, that the universe would make more sense if a divine will operated at this level to design the universe in a purposeful way, can be neither denied nor proved by scientific means. It is a matter of belief or ideology how we choose to think about the universe, and it will make no difference how we do our science. One can believe that some of the evolutionary pathways are so intricate and so complex as to be hopelessly improbable by the rules of random chance, but if you do not believe in divine action, then you will simply have to say that random chance was extremely lucky, because the outcome is there to see. Either way, the scientist with theistic metaphysics will approach laboratory problems in much the same way as will his atheistic colleague across the hall. And probably both will approach some of the astonishing adaptations seen in nature with a sense of surprise, wonder, and mystery. (101-102)

By integrating his metaphysical stance of theism with methodological naturalism as a research strategy, Gingerich is able to answer the question, “Is everything that happens in the natural world fixed by the laws of physics?” with a resolute no. “It seems to me that within the dappled universe is a theistic space, a perspective for viewing God’s universe, a universe where God can play an interactive role unnoticed by science, but not excluded by science” (111).

In the final pages of his book, Gingerich argues that divine communication must be part of the purpose of the universe:

If we regard God’s world as a site of purpose and intention and accept that we, as contemplative surveyors of the universe, are included in that intention, then the vision is incomplete without a role for divine communication, a place for God both as Creator-Sustainer and as Redeemer, a powerful transcendence that not only can be a something but can take on the mask of a someone; a which that can connect with us as a who, in a profound I-Thou relation. Such communication will be best expressed through personal relationships, through wise voices and prophets in many times and places. The divine communication will carry a moral dimension, only dimly perceived in the grandeur of creation, yet present through the self-limitation of the Creator who has given both natural laws and freedom within its structure. Here, implications for human morality are discernible, for this view implies a kenotic or self-renunciatory ethic that is at odds with the “survival of the fittest” of evolutionary theory…

Within the framework of Christianity, Jesus is the supreme example of personal communication from God. When the apostle Philip requested, “Show us the Father,” Jesus responded, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” When Jesus, hanging on the cross and slowly suffocating, cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” the nature of God’s self-limited, dappled world became excruciatingly clear. God acts within the world, but not always in the ways most obvious to our blinkered vision. (120-121)

Though many will disagree with Gingerich’s conclusions, his book provides a helpful and much-needed reflection on the limitations, interaction, and integration of both science and faith – physics and metaphysics. He also proves that maintaining a metaphysical stance of theism – and even Christianity – is not at odds with working within a context of “methodological naturalism as a research strategy” (73).

Gingerich provides a helpful model for those who believe that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, but are unwilling to settle for the simplistic and unsatisfying answers provided by Creationism and Intelligent Design. Gingerich proves that these are not the only options available to devout believers.

Quotes excerpted from God's Universe by Owen Gingerich
© Richard J. Vincent, 2007