Would the existence of aliens "discredit" Christianity?

In my last post, I discussed how the existence or non-existence of a so-called "multiverse" does not call into question the existence of the God of the Bible. Today we will look at a bit more complicated topic, extraterrestrial life. 

Full disclosure: I am an independent Baptist who is a young-earth creationist, in the sense of "thousands not millions" but not in the sense of "just barely over 6,000 years," a suggestion that actually cannot be proved by the biblical data, as aptly demonstrated by fellow fundamentalist Mark Snoeberger here. I also reject the so-called "conflict thesis," which cannot stand with an honest reading of the primary sources. The Scientific Method was developed and nurtured by theists, not atheists (for further discussion, see the excellent book Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, edited by Gary B. Ferngren [John Hopkins University Press, 2002], especially the first chapter by Colin A. Russell; also worth reading is J. Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformation, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery [Princeton University Press, 2003]).

Before we get too far into the discussion, I need to point out an obvious fact that is often neglected in the conversation. Christians, indeed the entire Judeo-Christian tradition (with a few exceptions, like the Sadducees), already believe in extraterrestrial life, if extraterrestrial life is defined as "(a.) sentient beings who (b.) do not live on earth." They're called "angels," duh! And no, they are not properly "supernatural" (and thus irrelevant to the discussion), since, (a.) they are created beings (Psalm 148:5) just a little bit above humans (Psalm 8:5), and (b.) they have limitations (Daniel 10:12–13), implying that they obey some sort of physical, governing laws (I use "physical" in the broad sense, to cover all of matter and energy in the created universe, and the laws that govern them). That they can fly and do other things that humans can't is irrelevant. They are still part of the physical universe. So, in a sense, Christians already believe in intelligent life outside of earth.

Nonetheless, what most people mean by "extra-terrestrial life" is not the sort of life mentioned in the Bible. Sometimes (though not always) agnostics or atheists assume that the discovery of that life (say, intelligent radio signals from a star 50 light years away) would invalidate Christianity because it is incompatible with the Bible. Conversely, sometimes young-earth creationists like myself seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against any suggestion that there might be microbes on Mars (or elsewhere), as if somehow that is synonymous with an evolutionary worldview. Here are a few thoughts in response.

1. I take as the starting point for my very existence and operational worldview that (a.) there is a loving, yet just, triune God who created the universe, and (b.) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for my sins and (physically and literally) was raised again the third day, and that (c.) I have eternal salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Absolutely nothing that can happen in the scientific realm or elsewhere can shake my faith. That is not to say that I can always explain everything, nor that my faith is always perfect; as one preacher years ago articulated, there are times in our lives where we cry out "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!" (Mark 9:24). But that is my starting point, the reason for my existence, and I can go nowhere else (John 6:68).

2. Whatever is discovered "out there," God created it. This means, then, that I am free from any "fear" of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life. God is the Creator, period, end of story. If there are living microbes on Mars, or were there in the past, God created them. Which means that I, personally, feel no need to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility. I will disagree with any "billions of years" description, but simply because a secular scientist discovers something does not necessarily make it a vast, evil conspiracy, nor is he or she necessarily wrong.

3. Christians have, in the past, speculated (either in non-fiction or fiction) about sentient extra-terrestrial life that was not angels. C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy is the classic example, and, at a minimum, Lewis could be quite critical of evolution (see the discussion by Samuel D. James here). But there are other examples predating him.

4. If, hypothetically (and this is a big "if"), intelligent life were to be discovered on another planet, the standard evangelical Christian reaction would not be "oh no, my faith is shaken!" but rather, "Do they know God? Are they fallen or un-fallen?; Do we need to send missionaries?" In my opinion, the only truly difficult theological question Christians would need to grapple with is whether or not Christ's death on the cross is meant to apply to all non-angelic sentient beings, or whether (if an alien race is fallen), they simply express faith in a Creator for salvation. (Salvation is always by faith, regardless; that's a universal principle). I, for one, have absolutely no problem with the idea of "interstellar evangelism," though atheist sci-fi writers in the past have maligned the idea (I think it was Harry Harrison, though I could be mistaken, that once wrote a short story where a well-intentioned Roman Catholic priest actually causes the aliens' fall from innocence, rather than redemption. Of course, such a short story only "preaches to the [atheistic or agnostic] choir," and hardly contributes to the discussion).

5. Both atheists and Christians would quickly fit the discovery, or non-discovery, of extra-terrestrial life into their paradigm. There are today agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that we are alone in the universe (and thus we are really "lucky" to be here), but there are also agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that the universe has quite a bit of life, which we just haven't discovered yet. One's presuppositions regarding the likelihood of the existence or non-existence of a Creator really does not matter one way or the other for the possibility of non-angelic life outside of earth. The existence or non-existence of life outside of earth does not "prove" or "disprove" either Christianity or atheism. The point of disagreement between Christians and atheists would not be the existence of extra-terrestrial life, but its origin.

6. Finally, evangelical Christians do not avoid the topic of the possibility of alien life. Its possibility is not an embarrassment. Both scholarly and more accessible discussions of the topic do exist, with C. S. Lewis being a prime example. The interested reader should also note the fascinating article by Rob Cook, "Would the Discovery of Alien Life Prove Theologically Embarrassing? A Response to Paul Davies," Evangelical Quarterly 84, no. 2 (2012): 139–154 (I say that it is worth reading, without endorsing everything in his conclusion).

Would a multiverse "discredit" Christianity?

Despite being very conservative in my theology and approach to Scripture, as well as a firm Creationist, I enjoy reading very broadly and can count within my library volumes by secular scientists Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and Brian Greene (in addition to books by scientists more theistically oriented, such as Francis Collins and Keith Ward). Quite a few (though not all) secular physicists of various stripes approve of, or at least are sympathetic to, the idea of a "multiverse," that our universe, consisting of millions of galaxies, is just one of many, perhaps infinite, other universes: As Greene writes, "Imagine that what we call the universe is actually only one tiny part of a vastly larger cosmological expanse, one of an enormous number of island universes scattered across a grand cosmological archipelago" (Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe [New York: Vintage, 2003], 366). 

Now, quite often the idea of a multiverse intrudes from the scientific realm into the philosophical realm as a tool to dispense of the need for God. Indeed, some time ago I read a short story in which the protagonist, as part of theoretical physics research team, assists in the discovery of another universe, and subsequently is "freed" from having to believe in God (as if somehow agnostics and/or atheists lived a more fulfilled life than religious people!). Occasionally the argument is given that a multiverse would once-for-all do away with the need to speculate about why our universe just so happens to be right for life, issues raised by the so-called anthropic principle.

In reality, this perspective is somewhat naive and begs the question. We are still left with the foundational question of why there is something rather than nothing, whether that be one universe or many. To argue that we just happen to be lucky to live in the one universe in a million that could sustain life does not explain how there exists a mechanism for the creation (or self-creation) of universes in the first place (the Big Bang further complicates matters, since with most interpretations it dispenses with the possibility that the universe is eternal).

 If one wishes to argue, as some do, that quantum mechanics via the role of observers allows for the destruction and creation of entire universes out of nothing, we are left with the question of how and why quantum mechanics came to define the universe. If quantum mechanics and the mechanism of observation, as an explanatory framework for the existence of the universe or multiverse, is simply left unquestioned, then quantum mechanics takes the role of God as the object of unquestioning faith. (I have discussed this more technically in my article in the British journal Science and Christian Belief, back in 2012; click here for access).

In other words, though arguably one can create an internally consistent explanation via quantum mechanics and the multiverse as to why we exist today, this comes at the expense of critical reflection on the very existence of those two elements. They replace God, because like God they are taken for granted. Every position, no matter how "scientific," retains some unquestioned presuppositions.

The flip side, of course, is that sometimes Christians assume unfairly that simply because secular science makes a suggestion not mentioned in the Bible, it is automatically suspect. Could God have created a multiverse? Absolutely. Why not? What God wishes to create is His business, and who am I to tell Him "no"? We Christians need to be a bit more careful in our knee-jerk reactions, and also to acknowledge the mystery of all that we do not know. As Augustine once said, "It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [i.e., maters about physical creation]; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, . . ." ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis," translated by J. H. Taylor; note to impressionable readers: this does not mean I agree with everything Augustine said in that treatise!).

Now, could the existence of a multiverse raise difficult theological questions? Maybe, maybe not. The very idea is not problematic. If God could create multiple galaxies, why not multiple universes? What would cause some deep theological reflection, though, is the possibility that via quantum mechanics every decision a person made in this universe causes it to split until two universes, with the opposite decision existing in another. We could end up with the bizarre situation of Jesus Christ dying for sinners in millions, perhaps an infinite number, of universes (though perhaps some universes exist where the Fall to sin never happened). At a minimum, that does not cohere well with the emphasis in Scripture on the finality of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice here on earth in AD 33 [or, less likely, AD 30]. Still, that is only one unlikely interpretation out of the unlikely (though not impossible) possibility that the multiverse exists (a situation which would seem to resist tangible proof, anyways).

In the next post we will look at another situation that some atheists and some Christians seem to think is antithetical to the coherence of Christianity, extra-terrestrial life.

The Christian and the origins of the universe

"Let's start at the very beginning," sang Julie Andrews in the iconic 1965 musical The Sound of Music, and I think Christians would be served well by doing the same thing. While debates about evolution, intelligent design, the flood, etc. are all good and well (and I am not embarrassed by my own Creationist beliefs), I believe that one of the more profitable levels of dialogue in scientific apologetics centers around the question of the origins of the very universe itself: "In the beginning, God created . . .”

I’ll confess that I’m something of a sci-fi fan (and a complete nerd), but in the process of reading good science fiction, I’ve also become interested in reading theoretical physics aimed at the layperson, including such well-written works as Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, Kenneth Ford’s The Quantum World: Quantum Physics for Everyone, and Paul Davies’ The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? In the process of reading science, I’ve come to believe that the nature of the universe’s existence presents an insurmountable problem for those holding that science, by itself, contains all the answers. I’ve recently had the privilege of contributing a peer-reviewed article that deals with this issue (see below).

Back in the day of the steady-state theory of the universe, this was less of a problem for the agnostic. If the universe was eternal, then what need for an eternal creator? Ironically, the advent of the so-called Big Bang theory  caused many scientists to heap scorn on its proponents. In fact, physicist William Bonner even suggested, regarding the big bang theory, “The underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator. It seems like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men in the seventeenth century” (quoted in Singh, 2004, p. 361; see bibliography). In the Soviet Union, proponents of the Big Bang were viewed as promoting a “something from nothing” creation and were actually persecuted. Stalinist Andrei Zhdanov, for example, sent physicist Nikolai Kozyrev to a labor camp in 1937 (Sing, 2004, p. 363) Clearly, for many the concept of an origin of the universe implied something outside of science that had to cause that origin.

[Writer’s note: I am not suggesting here that the secular Big Bang theory with all of its trappings is the same thing as Genesis 1:1, nor am I suggesting that the Big Bang, as modern science conceives of, is compatibile with a literal view of Genesis 1. What I am pointing out is simply that many scientists viewed the Big Bang theory with disdain simply because it seemed to point to an Originator of the universe. My overall point in this post concerns how scientists grapple with the very existence of the universe, and how their explanations are, in my opinion, inadequate. Also, I do think it's significant that physicist George P. Thomson once said, "Probably every physicist would believe in a creation if the Bible had not unfortunately said something about it many yhears ago and made it seem old-fashioned" (quoted in Singh, 2004, 361-362)]

Since the middle of the 20^th century, the Big Bang model has gradually become accepted by the majority of the main-stream scientific community. Since then, however, various theories have popped up which indirectly attempt to solve the “problems” that a non-eternal and life-bearing universe raises. These theories were not developed in order to put God out of the equation per se, but they are nevertheless often used as a means to discredit a deity. M-theory, for example, searches for that ultimate, all-encompassing set of facts/equations that will once and for all explain why the universe is as it is. Multiverse theory (not necessarily the same as M-theory, though many hold to both) attempts to explain the fact that we have a universe uniquely (and against all odds) geared to towards life by positing that our universe is simply one of many (possibly infinite) universes, and so naturally one of them is bound to have supported life. In response, one can always (like the obnoxious kid who always asks “why” in response to every statement) ask why M-theory has to exist at all, or why any universes, let alone ours, exists in the first place. The bottom line is that both a master-theory and the existence of multiverses become something that must be taken for granted, in the same way that Christians take for granted the existence of a personal deity.

In contrast, physicist Paul Davies recognizes many of the pitfalls inherent in modern cosmologies and instead tentatively posits a self-causing universe, a universe that contains its explanation and cause within itself. This is powered via observers (in Davies’ model, only a universe with life could exist in the first place) and quantum mechanics (see Davies, 2006, pp. 222-269, esp. 254-259 and 266-267; my description is of necessity a considerable simplification; the interested reader should read Davies for himself or herself, especially The Goldilocks Enigma).

First of all, let me say that Davies is a pleasure to read (at least his popular level works, though his more technical material can also be fascinating). Furthermore, Davies has taken a lot of scorn for daring to suggest that scientists have traditionally taken many things (e.g., the existence of the universe’s laws) on “faith,” and in the midst of criticism Davies has been reasonably calm and respectful (see, for example, his dialogue with other scientists in the online magazine Edge, December 2007, etc.; www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html) Indeed, Davies does not hold to his views in that dogmatically obnoxious way that characterizes some (whether they be scientists or theologians!) In fact, at one point he states, “At the end of the day, all the approaches I have discussed [including the one that Davies prefers] are likely to prove unsatisfactory. In fact, in reviewing them they all seem to me to be either ridiculous or hopelessly inadequate . . .” (Davies, 2006, 258-259) Overall, I greatly enjoy reading Davies and respect his work.

Nevertheless, I attempt to dialogue with and counter his ideas in my latest article, “The Emergent, Self-explaining Universe of Paul Davies – a Summary and Christian Response,” Science and Christian Belief vol. 24:1 (April 2012): 33-53. My overall point is that a self-causing, self-explaining universe still falls short because the method via observation by which it causes itself remains a mechanism that must be taken for granted. In other words, we can always ask “Why is there such a thing as self-causation in the first place, and what is the mechanism that allows this self-causation?” Similarly, quantum mechanics itself seems to be taken for granted, since even though the quantum laws are caused by backwards causation via observation, yet the quantum laws seemingly have to exist in the first place to allow such backwards causation. Whatever causes whatever, we are still left with the need to take such a backwards-causing mechanism for granted. [to the reader: if your head hurts at this point, never fear; so does mine!]

Here’s the bottom line: regardless of quantum mechanics, backwards causation, M-theory, or anything else, the very existence of the universe cries out with a very loud “why” that nothing inside of science itself can explain. Positing backwards causation or M-theory or multiverses remains just as much a presupposition (and, dare I say it, “faith”) as the belief in a personal God. Whatever you hold to, you have to have a starting point, or (in the case of Davies), a “starting point” that is actually the existence of a mechanism for self-causation that can explain a self-creating loop of a universe. This brief thought does not do justice to the debate, but I nevertheless believe it to be correct. Everybody has to start with some form of presupposition, some form of staring point.

In contrast, for the Christian this starting point is (in the words of J. Houghton) “the God out there [who] has entered our world in the person of Jesus” (Houghton, 2000, 158).  In other words, the ultimate Starting Point of all has become one of us, offering hope and redemption from our sins. We are not the cause of our own existence via observation, but rather the cause of our own suffering through our corrupted nature. Nevertheless God, in the form of Jesus Christ, who is “himself before all things” and through whom “all things are held together” (Col. 1:17, NET) offers hope for us and the universe through his death on the cross and resurrection.

          BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SUGGESTED READING

Davies, Paul. The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Originally published in the US under the title Cosmic Jackpot. For more relevant works by Davies, see the various works I cite in my S&CB article “The Emergent, Self-explaining Universe of Paul Davies.” As noted above, Davies is very readable and enjoyable and does a fairly good job in his popular books of making complex issues in theoretical physics  understandable.

Himes, Paul. “The Emergent, Self-explaining Universe of Paul Davies – a Summary and Christian Response.” Science and Christian Belief 24:1 (April 2012): 33-53. This article was originally a paper presented to Dr. Kenneth Keathley’s class “Christian Faith and Science,” a doctoral seminar at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Houghton, John. “Where is God? Thinking in More Than Three Dimensions.” Pages 157-160 in God for the 21^st Century. Ed. Russell Stannard. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation, 2000.

Singh, Simon. Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe. New York: Harper Perennial, 2004. A history of the Big Bang theory. Those who love mathematics are also encouraged to check out Singh’s fascinating book Fermat’s Enigma.

Note also that in the same S&CB issue as my own article there are two other interesting articles on cosmology: 1. William E. Carroll, “Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology: Creation and Beginnings,” and 2. John Turl, “Do Many Worlds Make Light Work?”