Prof Paul Davies adalah fisikawan dari Inggris, kini di Australia, penulis jernih tentang berbagai gejala fisika. Semoga tulisan ini bermanfaat. Salam, A Rusli 16 Apr 2000 >Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:56:54 +0200 >Reply-To: William Grassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sender: meta views <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: William Grassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [METAVIEWS] 039: In the 21st Century, by Paul Davies >Comments: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Metaviews 039. 2000.04.14. Approximately 2366 words. > >Below is a posting from Paul Davies in Australia. The essay is taken >from a recent talk in Philadelphia. Davies explores the challenges >for science and religion in the 21st century. He writes: "As we >enter a new century likely to dominated by sweeping scientific and >technological developments, the need for spiritual guidance will be >stronger than ever. Science alone cannot adequately cater for our >spiritual needs, but any religion that refuses to embrace scientific >discovery is unlikely to survive to the 22nd century." > >I am pleased to be able to post this message from Lyon, France, where >I am attending the 8th European Conference on Science and Theology >hosted by ESSSAT <http://www.esssat.org>. There are over 200 in >attendance from 27 different countries. Prior to travelling to Lyon, >I also had the privilege to attend a two-day meeting in Paris on >Science and Religion hosted by Jean Staune at the Universite >Interdisciplinaire De Paris. These meetings involved some 60 >participants and was held at UNESCO. The lectures and >side-conversations are as rich as the French food and wine, so I am a >bit behind in my correspondence. > >-- Billy Grassie > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >From: Paul Davies >Subject: Science and Religion in the 21st Century > >As we enter a new century likely to dominated by sweeping scientific >and technological developments, the need for spiritual guidance will >be stronger than ever. Science alone cannot adequately cater for our >spiritual needs, but any religion that refuses to embrace scientific >discovery is unlikely to survive to the 22nd century. > > >Religion faces extraordinary challenges in the 21st century. Dazzling >advances in science and technology have transformed our world view >and produced dramatic changes in lifestyle and material wellbeing. >But this enormous progress has left religion behind. Few theologians >have kept up with the revolutionary developments at the forefront of >astronomy, physics, molecular biology or genetics. Churches and other >religious institutions seem ill-equipped to deal with the brave new >world of big bang cosmology, quantum reality, genetic engineering and >nanotechnology. As a result, many people see religion on the >defensive against the onslaught of scientific progress. They think of >science as undermining or displacing religion. > >Historically, it is true that major scientific discoveries, such as >Darwin's theory of evolution, have proved profoundly unsettling in >some religious quarters. And three hundred years of materialistic and >reductionistic scientific thought has fostered the impression that >scientists are cold, hard, soulless individuals who try to reduce the >splendour of nature to sterile mathematical formulas. > >However, this view of two implacably opposed belief systems >constantly at loggerheads is seriously misleading. For those >religious thinkers prepared to engage the scientific agenda in a >constructive spirit, the coming decades will be a time of excitement >and renewal. Science need not be the enemy of religion. Indeed, far >from threatening mankind's spiritual wellbeing, science is >increasingly seen as positively inspirational. As scientists unlock >more and more secrets of nature, so they reveal a universe of >stunning beauty and ingenuity, a grand cosmic scheme truly worthy of >our awe and celebration. > >The predicted concordance between science and religion will not come >without significant religious progress, however. To appreciate the >fascinating synergies that are emerging in the science/religion field >demands a level of theological sophistication far above that which >characterises the simplistic wrangling of much public >science-religion debate. For their part, if scientists were better >educated in matters of religion and spirituality, they would be less >inclined to dismiss them as anachronisms. > >To illustrate what I mean, I shall take two examples from the >scientific frontier that are often presented as threatening to >religion, and argue that the reverse is actually the case. The first >is the big bang theory of the birth of the universe, the second is >the origin of life. My central point will be this. Neither of these >events needs a miracle to explain it. Both happened, I believe, >through natural physical processes, billions of years ago. But far >from supporting a purposeless cosmos and a bleak atheism, as many >have concluded, these scientific advances do just the opposite. > >Let me start with the origin of the universe. Remember the furore >when Stephen Hawking said, more or less, that God wasn't necessary to >explain the big bang? I always took this remark of Stephen's to be a >light-hearted jibe rather than a serious statement of theology. >Hawking was in fact stating little more than St. Augustine, who had >already concluded in the fifth century that, "the world was made with >time and not in time." Augustine was anxious to demolish the na�ve >image of God as a sort of miracle-working superbeing emersed in the >stream of time, waiting an eternity before whimsically making the >universe at some arbitrary moment, and then sitting back to watch the >action. If time itself forms part of creation, reasoned Augustine, >then this embarrassing pre-creation eternity would not exist. He >therefore placed God outside of time altogether, and interpreted >"creation from nothing" to include the creation of time. Today, when >most Christian theologians talk about "creation," they don't mean the >universe popping into being from nothing, but the holding-in-being of >space, time, matter and the laws of nature at all times. In this more >sophisticated interpretation of creation, God is regarded not so much >a cosmic magician, or pyrotechnic engineer, but as the rational >ground in which all physical existence is timelessly rooted. > >Remarkably, Albert Einstein came to more or less the same conclusion, >1,500 years later. His theory of relativity makes it clear that time >is inseparable from space and matter, and that all are part of the >physical universe, subject to laws of nature. Personally, I find the >idea of a god trapped in time and subordinated to its laws >theologically very unsatisfactory. In Einstein's theory, the entire >universe can originate from literally nothing in a big bang. There is >no time before the big bang: time itself comes into being with space >and matter. Moreover, there are known physical principles that permit >the spontaneous appearance of time and space from nothing, without >the need for a supernatural act to make the big bang go bang. So >Hawking was merely sniping at a concept of God that was in any case >abandoned long ago by scholarly theologians. > >Unfortunately many people regard this scientific account of the >cosmic birth as trickery. They suspect scientists are merely covering >their ignorance with technical obfuscation, lest they leave a >loophole for God. This mistaken conclusion has been made by many >commentators, including the leading British journalist Bernard Levin. >In a hard-hitting column in the London Times that began with the >memorable words, "Well, poor old God..." Levin slammed the great >American physicist John Archibald Wheeler for pointing out, quite >correctly, that the question "What happened before the big bang?" is >simply meaningless in the context of the general theory of >relativity. It is a meaningless question when time itself began with >the big bang. As Stephen Hawking puts it, it's rather like asking >what lies north of the North Pole? The answer is "nothing," not >because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because >there is no such place as "north of the North Pole." In the same way, >there is no such time as "before the big bang." The big bang theory >describes how the universe originates from nothing - nothing at all, >not even space and time - entirely in accordance with the laws of >physics. Augustine would have understood perfectly. > >I want to insert two important caveats at this point. The big bang >theory is, of course, a mathematical model. There is a vast amount of >observational support for the basic idea of an abrupt, explosive >origin for the cosmos about 15 billion years ago, and I don't think >the basic scenario is in doubt. But the actual originating event >itself is far beyond any foreseeable observation. In the laboratory >it is possible to recreate the conditions that prevailed about a >trillionth of a second after the big bang, but the sort of physics we >need to explain the origin of space and time occurred well before >that, at energies trillions of times greater. So the explanation for >the natural origin of the universe using quantum cosmology is a >highly speculative piece of mathematical theory. It may turn out to >be totally wide of the mark. But that doesn't matter! The key point >is that we can envisage how the universe might have come into being >from nothing, without violating any physical laws. A special >supernatural act isn't needed to start the universe off. > >The second caveat is that the big bang model I have been discussing >may be altogether too simple. It could be that there were many bangs, >and that what we call "the universe" is actually just one bubble of >spacetime amid a vast assemblage of universes - a multiverse if you >like. But I don't want to tax your patience too much, so I shall >sidestep these elaborations and move on to the second of my chosen >topics - the origin of life. > >Darwin famously explained how life on Earth has gradually evolved >from primitive microbes to the rich diversity of the biosphere that >we see today. However, he left open the question of how the first >living thing came into existence. And it remains deeply problematic. >How did lifeless chemicals transform themselves spontaneously into >the first living thing? Nobody knows. There are plenty of theories, >but they all have serious shortcomings. It's a genuine mystery. > >Now there are those who seize on this bafflement to declare that God >created the first living organism by a miracle. But this is to fall >for the old god-of-the-gaps trap - invoking God to explain a puzzling >phenomenon. The idea that God is like an absentee landlord who shows >up from time to time to give the world a prod, moving atoms about in >competition with the forces of nature, I find both scientifically and >theologically repugnant. It is also a tactically foolhardy >proposition, because science has a habit of solving mysteries sooner >rather than later. > >As it happens there is a lot of research going on in the field of >biogenesis. Some scientists are trying to make life from scratch in >the lab, by mixing chemicals in various ways. Others are following a >top-down route, taking existing microbes and rebuilding them gene by >gene in the hope of creating new, more primitive, forms of life in >the test tube. The hope is that these studies will solve the mystery >of how Mother Nature accomplished the genesis trick on the primitive >Earth - or perhaps on a nearby body in the solar system - billions of >years ago, without the aid of fancy equipment and trained organic >chemists. Major advances are expected in the coming decades. > >So does it boil down to either life being a miracle, or God being >redundant? Certainly not! As a scientist, I would prefer to believe >that life did indeed form by natural physical processes. However, >that is hardly the end of the story. Physical processes come in two >varieties - lawful and random. Traditionally, scientists assumed that >the origin of life was a chemical fluke of stupendous improbability, >a quirk of fate unique in the entire cosmos. If so, then we are alone >in an otherwise sterile universe, and the existence of life on Earth, >in all its exuberant glory, is just a meaningless accident. On the >other hand a growing number of scientists suspect that life is >written into the fundamental laws of the universe, so that it is >almost bound to arise wherever earthlike conditions prevail. If they >are right - if life is part of the basic fabric of reality - then we >human beings are living representations of a breathtakingly ingenious >cosmic scheme, a set of laws that is able to coax life from nonlife >and mind from unthinking matter. How much more impressive is such a >magnificent set of physical principles - which bear all the hallmarks >of design - than the sporadic intervention of a Deity who simply >conjures these marvels into existence. > >Here then is a wonderful example of how science is increasingly >informing theological debate. The question of whether life formed by >law or chance can, and I believe will, be settled by observation and >experiment. If life is finally made in a test tube, or discovered on >Mars and shown to be completely independent of earthlife, then the >meaningless fluke theory will be disproved. Life and mind will be >revealed as part of the grand cosmic scheme, embedded in the nature >of things at the deepest level of reality. Our own existence will be >seen as linked to this deep level in an intimate and purposeful way. >Instead of us playing a trivial role as incidental cosmic extras, >with life on Earth an insignificant accident in a pointless universe, >our place in the cosmos will be far more inspiring. True, it wouldn't >return us to the centre of the universe or to the pinnacle of >creation - our place is far more humble - but nor will it relegate us >to the status of mere moving mounds of atoms. In my view, the >discovery that life and mind have emerged as part of the natural >outworking of the laws of the universe will be strong evidence for a >deeper purpose in physical existence. Since it is easy to imagine >other universes and other sets of physical laws that would prohibit >life, the fact that our universe is so ingeniously bio-friendly would >surely be a fact of the utmost significance. I hope you see the drift >of my thinking. Invoking a miracle to explain life is exactly what is >not needed to see evidence of divine purpose in the universe. > >So I conclude my remarks on a positive note. As we enter a new >century likely to dominated by sweeping scientific and technological >developments, the need for spiritual guidance will be stronger than >ever. Science alone cannot adequately cater for our spiritual needs, >but any religion that refuses to embrace scientific discovery is >unlikely to survive to the 22nd century. > > >Paul Davies > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Footer information below last updated: 1999/12/10. > >Meta is an edited and moderated listserver and news service >dedicated to promoting the constructive engagement of science >and religion. Subscriptions are free. For more information, >including archives and submission guidelines, go to ><http://www.meta-list.org>. > >There are now four separate meta-lists to which you can subscribe: ><metaviews> is commentaries and bookreviews posted three to five >times per week. <metanews> is announcements and news and is posted >as frequently as needed. <metamonthly> is a monthly digest. ><meta-reiterations> is a higher volume discussion list which is lightly >moderated. You can subscribe to one or all of the meta-lists. > >If you would like to unsubscribe or change your subscription options, >simply go to <http://www.meta-list.org> and follow the links to >subscribe or unsubscribe. Note that all subscription changes entered >on the web forms, requires your confirmation by email. > >Copyright 1999, 2000 by William Grassie. Copies of this internet posting >may be made and distributed in whole without further permission. Credit: >"This information was circulated on the Meta Lists on Science and Religion ><http://www.meta-list.org>." >
