Introduction
Bringing up the Big Bang in certain Christian circles is a fraught proposition. Depending on the audience, the response might be hearty agreement, hasty disagreement, or panicky joking (“God said it, and BANG, it happened!”). This paper attempts to address all three groups by showing that Big Bang cosmology is not a threat to the Christian faith. Instead, Big Bang cosmology allows for a convergence of theological, philosophical, and scientific truth in discussing the origins of the universe and its ultimate fate. Rather than fearing the steady march of science in uncovering the secrets of the universe, Christians should embrace and engage in dialogue as science will always be inadequate in addressing philosophical and theological questions. Indeed, some of the greatest thinkers in Christian history proposed theological and philosophical solutions to the origin of the universe long before the modern scientific method and current theories came to be accepted as authoritative.
This paper aims not to present a deep dive into the interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis or to rehash scientific proofs for intelligent design, but rather to illustrate that Christians need not fear the pursuit of scientific truth. This paper will show that with Big Bang cosmology, there is an overlap between truth found in theology and philosophy and truths found in science and that these truths are actually interdependent. Why? Because despite the ability of scientists to peer back through time utilizing sophisticated devices and mathematical formulae, cosmology alone cannot answer ultimate questions about the meaning of life. For that, we turn to theology and philosophy.[1]Moreover, with the interdependent truth claims of theology, philosophy, and science Christians should not panic at new discoveries and instead come to realize that the majesty of scientific truth can always and only point back to the majesty of the Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer of creation.
Presuppositions
Since it is beyond the scope of this paper to delve deeply into hermeneutical questions (e.g., Is יום [yom] a literal 24-hour day?), the establishment of a few presuppositions are in order. First, the universe is created and is contingent upon a Creator for existence. Second, the Bible is authoritative. If the Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, then that is what happened, and the truth of God as Creator should align with scientific truth. Third, beyond just the question of origins, the Bible also makes statements regarding the ending of the universe, and those statements must also be true, and those statements should also align with scientific truth.
The Big Bang and Theological Implications
In certain Christian circles, the Big Bang is not merely a scientific theory to debate but a danger to Christianity's foundation. Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis apologetics ministry holds that “the big bang is diametrically opposed to the supernatural creation described in the Bible.” Further, the ministry asserts that “there simply isn’t any good reason to believe in the big bang…We have a reasoned faith, which is based on a trustworthy and reliable Witness, who has told us the origins of the universe in his revealed Word of the Bible."[2] However, is it true that Big Bang cosmology is opposed to the Genesis account of the universe's origins? Does the created order not also speak the truth about its Creator? Another apologetics ministry, The Institute for Creation Research, contends that those who believe in the Big Bang are exercising willful ignorance and unbelief.[3]
With blanket pronouncements such as those declared by AIG and ICR, is it even possible for a Christian who takes the truth of the Bible seriously to believe in the Big Bang or are Christians relegated to keeping their faith and their scientific beliefs consigned to separate silos? It is telling, as scientific instruments have increased in complexity and in their ability to test theories about the origins of the universe, that even avowedly secular scientists have tipped their hand that the study of physics and the Big Bang might require something to “[breathe] fire into the equations and [make] a universe for them to describe.”[4] If the study of physics and cosmology leads a scientist like Stephen Hawking to make distinctively theological statements, perhaps the questions Christians should be asking about the Genesis account of creation should be primarily theological as well rather than trying to make the text into a scientific instrument that would not have been a part of authorial intent.
For Christians, the hill to die on in Genesis is not the age of the earth or whether or not the days of creation are literal 24-hour days.[5] It is much simpler and more profound. The critical theological truth for Christians is the belief in the supernatural origins of the cosmos.[6] Once that foundation has been established, it is possible to look at the Big Bang and start to see the startling ways the science upholds the fundamental theological truth of the Biblical creation account. In 1914, Edwin Hubble made the remarkable discovery that the galaxies he had been observing were moving further away from each other. This discovery implied that, at some point in the distant past, all the galaxies had once been packed together, and something must have set them in motion to send them careening away from each other.[7] In the aftermath of that discovery, Einstein went on to show that in an expanding universe, there must have been a point where both time and space had a beginning.[8] These discoveries, far from being readily accepted in the scientific community, were very disruptive as they challenged previously accepted ideas: that the universe was eternal, static, and unchanging.[9] The discovery of the Big Bang, rather than upending the Scriptural account of creation, served to provide a scientific backing for it that caused those philosophically committed to materialism a great deal of consternation. Since its discovery, the Big Bang theory has proven resilient even as ever more sophisticated scientific instruments and experiments attempt to shed light on the initial moments of the origins of the universe.[10]
The assertion of Big Bang cosmology that there is a point where both time and space began to exist is a compelling proof for the critical theological assertion of Genesis 1: God created. Nevertheless, there is more to Big Bang cosmology than just the question of the origins of the universe. If the Big Bang is correct and the Bible is true, the implications spread beyond the first few chapters of Genesis. Big Bang cosmology reveals that the current state of the universe and the ultimate state of the universe must be considered through the same theological lens as the origins of the universe.
If Big Bang cosmology points to an origin consistent with the theological truth of God as Creator, the Big Bang must also reconcile with Biblical eschatology. There are two primary theories about how the universe will end in Big Bang cosmology. One assumes a universe that is infinite in size, and the universe will expand until the temperature falls to absolute zero and everything freezes. The other assumes the universe is finite in size and will eventually stop expanding and contract back into a singularity, much like the initial one at the Big Bang.[11] On the surface, these theories present major theological problems for the Big Bang. If, as Big Bang cosmology suggests, the entire universe is destined for destruction, does the inevitable death of the universe negate the Christian faith and the hope for the ultimate restoration of all things?[12] In his letter to the Christians in Rome, the Apostle Paul says:
19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.[13]
In this distinctively eschatological statement, we find words that hearken back to Genesis and the origin of the universe, mourn the current state of the cosmos, and look forward to a time when the entire created order will be set free from bondage and corruption.[14] Paul does not paint a picture of a static and unchanging universe. The universe Paul describes is one wracked by pain, suffering, and corruption. It is dynamic and changing and not necessarily in a good way. It sounds like a universe careening toward destruction. But Paul's statement is not that of the scientist committed to materialism. Indeed, amidst the destruction he describes, there is a strong undercurrent of hope. Even as it seems to be edging ever closer to inevitable doom, the cosmos is crying for renewal. This current pain, rather than being a pain that leads to ultimate death, is more like the pain of childbirth and on the other side of that pain is birth and new life. A re-creation. A new creation. All of the created order, living and non-living, is a part of God’s eternal plan from creation to new creation.[15] Paul’s vision of a universe in pain corresponds well with the image Big Bang cosmology paints: a cosmos that is tipping ever closer to destruction. This universe requires Divine intervention, just like it needed in the beginning, to avoid its inevitable fate.
In the apocalyptic letter of Revelation written by the Apostle John, two cryptic verses say: “And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth.”[16] A bit later in the letter, John says: “The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire.”[17] The imagery John evokes with these words is cosmic in scale and suggests a universe much like the one Paul describes. It is a universe in pain—a universe hostile to humanity. It is a universe experiencing the judgment of God, being used by God for judgment, and one desperately in need of renewal. If John stops with these images, one would be forgiven for thinking that the imminent destruction of the universe predicted by Big Bang cosmology is the end of the story. However, it is not the end of the story. Just as God was present and active in the creation of the universe, so God is present and active in the renewal of the universe. “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And he who was seated on the throne said, ‘Behold, I am making all things new.’”[18] This is the resurrected and redeemed creation. Divine action was needed at the beginning of the universe, so Divine action will also be needed to resurrect a cosmos destined for destruction.[19] Big Bang cosmology, with its assumptions about the beginning of time and space and the end of the universe, does not stand at odds with the foundational theological statement, “God created.” It also does not stand at odds with the foundational theological statement, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Both involve Divine intervention. Thus, theologically, when it comes to origins and endings, Big Bang cosmology is compatible with Scripture.[20] However, even this statement must come with a caveat. Human scientific knowledge is incomplete, so to rigidly tie a theological statement like "God created" to Big Bang cosmology carries the risk that some discovery may one day unseat the Big Bang and another theory of origins rise to prominence.[21] Physicists who do not like the philosophical and theological implications of the Big Bang continue to seek other models that would eliminate the need for a Creator.[22] Thus, it is vital that Christians not become single-minded in their defense of Big Bang cosmology and instead continue to add depth to the argument for God as Creator by plumbing the riches of modern science and also looking back to the rich theological wells of Christian tradition where such questions have already been asked.
Augustine and Cosmology
While the discoveries of modern physics have primarily occurred in the last 120 years, the greatest thinkers of the Christian tradition have pondered the questions raised by modern scientists for periods that stretch over a millennium. The robust philosophical and theological foundations of the Christian faith offer a steadying counterweight to the fits and starts of scientific progress. While the discoveries of modern physics might be new ground for science, they are not new ground for Christians. While often seeking to integrate or reform the cosmological ideas of Greek philosophy into a distinctively Christian understanding of origins, writers such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas provide timely insights into how Christians can integrate Big Bang cosmology into an understanding of a created universe.
Perhaps no figure looms larger in the development of Christian philosophy and theology than Augustine. Thus, a natural place to look when searching for that steadying counterweight is to his thinking and writing. Indeed, for a man who lived from 354-430, his writing on the origins of the universe is prescient in its anticipation of modern Big Bang cosmology.[23] In his Confessions, he writes about creation out of nothing:
You, therefore, O Lord, who art not one thing in one place, and otherwise in another, but the Self-same, and the Self-same, and the Self-same, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, did in the beginning, which is of You, in Your Wisdom, which was born of Your Substance, create something, and that out of nothing. For Thou created heaven and earth, not out of Yourself, for then they would be equal to Your Only-begotten, and thereby even to You; and in no wise would it be right that anything should be equal to You which was not of You. And anything else except You there was not whence You might create these things.[24]
In another section of Confessions, he writes about the relationship of God to time:
For whence could innumerable ages pass by which You did not make, since You are the Author and Creator of all ages? Or what times should those be which were not made by You? Or how should they pass by if they had not been? Since, therefore, You are the Creator of all times, if any time was before You made heaven and earth, why is it said that You refrained from working? For that very time You made, nor could times pass by before You made times. But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What were You doing then? For there was no then when time was not.[25]
While it would be pressing Augustine too far to say he assumed an age of the universe consistent with Big Bang cosmology,[26] he provides firm theological and philosophical footing for those looking to reconcile modern science with historic Christian thought. Indeed, much as Big Bang cosmology popularized the idea in the scientific world that the universe as we know it might not be eternal, so Augustine pushed back against the dominant Greek philosophies of his day with the idea that the universe was created ex nihilo, it had a beginning.[27] This created universe possessed functional integrity in which "every category of structure and creature and process was conceptualized by the Creator from the beginning but actualized in time…[T]he earth was able to bring forth simply by employing the God-given capacities of its creaturely being.”[28] This suggests that the initial creation occurred at a specific moment in time and that the universe God created continues to "bring forth" and create new life in fulfillment of the initial mandate given by God. Within the initial creative actions of God were planted the seeds for the entire cosmic order that exists today and into the future.[29]
In Augustine, Christians find a robust theological and philosophical framework faithful to Scripture and possessing a deep intellectual well that can be drawn from even when considering modern physics.[30] For example, Augustine’s understanding of Scripture led him to believe the universe was finite and had a beginning point in time and space. Before the rise of Big Bang cosmology, the Steady State models of the universe predicted an eternal universe. However, these were called into question with the discoveries of Edwin Hubble and the observation of an expanding universe and by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who discovered cosmic background radiation, which was predicted by the Hot Big Bang model. These, along with further discoveries of distant galaxies in earlier stages of development, only further strengthen the words of Augustine's ancient writings: the universe did indeed have a beginning.[31]
Aquinas and Cosmology
Many centuries later, Thomas Aquinas would continue in Augustine's tradition by taking ideas from Aristotelian metaphysics and baptizing them in Christian theism. The result was a robust philosophical and theological framework that can help Christians integrate Big Bang cosmology into their understanding of Genesis and the origins of the universe.[32]
Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, provided five proofs for the existence of God. Of these five, the first three are particularly relevant to the discussion of Big Bang cosmology and the creation of the world. The first is the argument from motion, which states that “everything in motion must be moved by something else. But the sequence of motion and movers cannot go back to infinity.”[33] The second is the argument from efficient cause in which Aquinas argues that the efficient cause is that which everyone recognizes as God.[34] The third is the argument from possibility and necessity. Here, Aquinas argues that there are two types of beings. One is necessary, and the other contingent. A necessary being must exist, and a contingent being depends on the necessary being for its existence. Thus, because something exists today, there must be a necessary being, and Aquinas contends that this being is God.[35] In Summa, Aquinas argues that:
We must say that the distinction and multitude of things come from the intention of the first agent, who is God. For He brought things into being in order that His goodness might be communicated to creatures, and be represented by them; and because His goodness could not be adequately represented by one creature alone, He produced many and diverse creatures…and hence the whole universe together participates in the divine goodness more perfectly, and represents it better than any single creature whatever.[36]
Aquinas believed that there must be a first cause to motion and that there must be a being who can confer existence and thus start that initial motion.[37] This puts Aquinas in line not just with the Genesis account of God as Creator but also with Big Bang cosmology, which points to a beginning point of space and time. For those seeking to harmonize Scripture, Aquinas, and Big Bang cosmology, the answer to the questions of the who and the why of creation is God.[38] But the work of Aquinas provides Christians with an even deeper bench of philosophical tools when it comes to questions of origins. Indeed, one of the enduring questions about the Big Bang is what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists, motivated by a materialistic worldview, continue to seek answers to the question of origins that would eliminate the need for Divine action.[39] If a future discovery can conclusively ascertain that something was in existence before the Big Bang, would that render moot the ability to harmonize Big Bang cosmology with Scripture and the foundational doctrine of God as Creator? Would Christians who have devoted decades of research to exploring the Big Bang need to look for another scientific explanation that better fits with Scripture? According to the writings of Aquinas, this might not be necessary. Indeed, the philosophical answer that Aquinas provides preempts the scientific one by centuries.[40]
For Aquinas, the most important aspect of Genesis was the fact of creation and that God is the necessary being upon which everything else in the universe is contingent.[41] The eternality of the universe is not, philosophically, out of the question.
To understand this, we must consider that the efficient cause, which acts by motion, of necessity, precedes its effect in time; because the effect is only in the end of the action, and every agent must be the principle of action. However, if the action is instantaneous and not successive, the maker does not need to be before the thing made in duration as appears in the case of illumination. Hence they say that it does not follow necessarily if God is the active cause of the world, that He should be prior to the world in duration; because creation, by which He produced the world, is not a successive change.[42]
This Creator is the efficient cause of everything, the necessary being, and this does not change. But how can this be reconciled with theories about the eternality of the universe, and should Christians be concerned about these? Even though discoveries in physics and cosmology currently align well with the Genesis account of a Divinely created world with a beginning in space and time, some scientists continue to seek explanations that would do away with the need for outside intervention in the universe.[43] Despite being driven more by a philosophical commitment than a neutral pursuit of truth, Christians should not fear some future discovery. This is not just because of the truth of Scripture, although it is the primary reason, but also because thinkers like Aquinas have already provided a way to rebut such discoveries should they ever come.
With Aquinas, there is the potential to think of the beginning of the universe and the universe's creation as distinct concepts. “Because the creation of the universe is but a dependence of the universe in its existence on the Prime Cause, one can think, without any danger of contradiction, about the created universe as existing from minus time infinity. The dependence in existence does not require the initiation of existence.”[44] The distinction Aquinas draws here is what allows his ideas to function in the theological (“God created”), philosophical (“Why is there something?”), and scientific realms (Big Bang and/or eternal universe) at the same time. He can distinguish between creation as a philosophical idea where temporality may not matter and creation as a theological idea where there is a beginning to time.[45] While Aquinas did believe, by faith, that the universe had a beginning,[46] this was not his primary concern and is the reason why his ideas would remain relevant and helpful even if the universe is proven to be eternal because “he sees all things coming from and returning to God.”[47]
With Scripture, Augustine and Aquinas, and science, Christians have a three-legged stool that has been able to withstand many centuries of theological, philosophical, and scientific testing. Rather than pinning hope on just one thing, the church's historical teachings serve to reinforce the foundation of Scripture and allow Christians to pursue scientific knowledge without fear that the reinforced foundation will be compromised.
Christian Faith and The Convergence of Truth
Thus far, this paper has shown in broad brushstrokes that Big Bang cosmology is compatible with Scriptural ideas about creation and eschatology and the theological and philosophical ideas of Augustine and Aquinas. It often feels as though some Christians live in a steady state of mild panic over Big Bang cosmology, its implications, and what future scientific discoveries might say about their faith. The Christian faith makes many truth claims, and it often feels like science or rather science driven by materialism, is making competing truth claims. However, Christian truth and scientific truth should not diverge but rather converge and be mutually reinforcing.
Christianity has a long history of finding truth in the world and then showing how what is true and good stands not at odds with the Bible, but rather alongside and supportive of the Bible. Augustine and Aquinas did this with Greek philosophy.[48] While they could not agree with everything claimed by Greek philosophers, they endeavored to take that which was right and good and to integrate it into Christian thought. Rather than fearing the dominant philosophical worldviews of their day, they dialogued with the ideas to reinforce Christian truth. Wolfhart Pannenberg suggests that the discovery of the Big Bang, even if it does not point to concrete proof for the God of the Bible, does provide a "new 'consonance,' a new harmony between theology and scientific cosmology. This also applies to the corrections of an excessively deterministic picture of the course of nature since the development of quantum theory in physics.”[49]
Christians, much to the chagrin of post-modernists, claim to believe in absolute truth. Unfortunately, Christians too often narrowly apply the idea to Scripture alone.[50] Thus, instead of seeing scientific truth and philosophical truth as mutually supportive of the truth of Scripture, they can be seen as dangers that are slowly chipping away at the authority of God's Word. Had this been Augustine and Aquinas' view regarding Greek philosophy, we would have never seen their robust dialogues with the dominant ideas of their day and their integration of the truths of Scripture with the truths of Greek philosophy that have proven so resilient. It might be helpful to think of this convergence of truth as a Venn diagram.
All three disciplines make truth claims. Theology makes truth claims about the things of God and of utmost importance. Philosophy makes truth claims about metaphysics. Science makes truth claims about the natural world. Where we find truth in one discipline, we must also find it in the other two. Christian theology says that God created. In philosophy, various cosmological arguments can be found that attest to a created cosmos. In science, Big Bang cosmology, while not a direct proof for the Christian God, provides a scientific probability for the claims of theology and philosophy. Granted, scientific knowledge is imperfect and incomplete, as evidenced by the discoveries that drive the discipline forward.[51]
Nevertheless, Christians should not live in fear that, at some point, a scientific discovery will eliminate God. As Aquinas said, Christians take the creation of the universe in space and time by faith, but even if some future scientific discovery proved the eternality of the universe, the materialist's dream, this would not prove there is no God. The universe would still be contingent upon the existence of God as the necessary being. When you consider that far from disproving God, the discoveries of modern cosmology and physics have mainly served to reinforce the idea that there must be a Designer, Christians need not live in fear but should follow in the footsteps of Augustine and Aquinas in integrating the best of Christian thinking with the best of scientific discovery.
In Where The Conflict Really Lies, Alvin Plantinga devotes an entire book to show that theism, in particular Christianity, does not always stand at odds with science as popular culture would have you believe, but instead, there is a "deep concord" between Christianity and science. He points to two things that provide that deep concord. The first is the doctrine of imago dei and humanity being created in the image of God. As humans value “simplicity, elegance, beauty; it is therefore reasonable to think this divine preference will be reflected in the world he has created.”[52]Second, Plantinga says that our world was created in such a way that there is adequation intellectus ad rem (the adequation of the intellect to reality). “The basic idea, here, is simply that there is a match between our cognitive or intellectual faculties and reality, thought of as including whatever exists, a match that enables us to know something, indeed a great deal, about the world – and also about ourselves and God himself.”[53] Even as science continues on its quest for the truth about the natural world in fits and starts, Christians can be confident in the fact that there is indeed deep concord between their faith and scientific truth. It is baked into the magnificent cosmos God created. It is baked into the minds God gave us to discover the cosmos.
Conclusion
In a humorous exchange in Douglas Adams’ classic science fiction novel, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Adams turns many of the modern scientific arguments for the existence of God on their head. In this topsy-turvy universe, belief in God is a faith-only proposition. Proof, whether by science or logic, cannot enter into the picture. In fact, as soon as biological proof is provided for the existence of God, God vanishes in a puff of logic.[54] While in our universe, faith certainly is required for belief in God, there are thankfully no problems with that belief being buttressed by science and philosophy. Perhaps Christians would do well to emblazon the words DON’T PANIC inside the covers of their Bibles. Contrary to what is often heard, there is no conflict between scientific pursuits in ascertaining the origins of the universe and the Genesis account of creation. Indeed, the widely accepted Big Bang cosmology that is dominant today only serves to reinforce the claim of the Genesis creation account that is of the utmost importance: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Christians can rest easy in knowing that not only is Genesis 1-2 not insanely complicated and full of errors like the guidebook in The Hitchhiker’s Guide, but it is also breathtaking in its beauty and simplicity. Instead, the scientific pursuit of the truth about the natural world has borne out again and again that the Bible is, in fact, reliable. And not just reliable in its account of the origins of the cosmos, but also its account of the endings of the cosmos. Thus, Christians should continue to pursue a rigorous and robust integration of the claims of Big Bang cosmology with the unalterable truths of Scripture. When Christians find incompatibilities, they should not panic because ultimately, what is true in Scripture will be shown to be true in science. Within those overlapping rings of truth, Christians grow not just in knowledge of the created order, but also in knowledge of the One who created it. In that, there is profound stability and peace.
Bibliography
Adams, Douglas. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Turtleback, 1995.
Backon, Joshua. “The Big Bang Theory of Creation: Bara as Sudden Expansion.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 44, no. 4 (October 2016): 266–268.
Barr, Stephen M. Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. University of Notre Dame Press, 2003.
Bodenheimer, Joseph S. “A Fresh Look at Genesis.” B’Or Ha’Torah 23 (2014/2015 2014): 29–38.
Brown, William P. “The Unexpected Universe: Emergence, Convergence, and the ‘Overview Effect.’” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology 70, no. 1 (January 2016): 7.
Carroll, William E. “Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology: Creation and Beginnings.” Science & Christian Belief 24, no. 1 (April 2012): 5–18.
———. “Creation and Science in the Middle Ages.” New Blackfriars 88, no. 1018 (November 2007): 678.
———. “The Genesis Machine: Physics and Creation.” Modern Age 53, no. 1–2 (January 1, 2011): 114.
Carvin, Walter P. “Creation and Scientific Explanation.” Scottish Journal of Theology 36, no. 3 (1983): 289–307.
Case-Winters, Anna. “The End? Christian Eschatology and the End of the World.” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible & Theology 70, no. 1 (January 2016): 61.
De Beer, Wynand Vladimir. “The Patristic Understanding of the Six Days (Hexaemeron).” Journal of Early Christian History 5, no. 2 (2015): 3–23.
Dennis, Dan. “Evil, Fine-Tuning and the Creation of the Universe.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 70, no. 2 (October 2011): 139–145.
Frame, John M. A History of Western Philosophy and Theology. P & R Publishing, 2015.
Gluckman, Honey. “Scientific Proof for a Creator.” Jewish Affairs 71, no. 3 (September 2016): 48–52.
Gonzalez, Guillermo, and Jay Wesley Richards. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery. Regnery Publishing, 2004.
Hausoul, Raymond R. “Theology and Cosmology: A Call for Interdisciplinary Enrichment.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 54, no. 2 (June 2019): 324.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books, 1998.
Heller, Michael. “Cosmological Singularity and the Creation of the Universe.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 35, no. 3 (September 2000): 665.
Hofstetter, Adrian M. “Thomas Aquinas and the New Cosmology: Faith Encounters Science Anew.” Sisters Today 71, no. 4 (July 1999): 258–266.
Lucas, Ernest C. “The Bible, Science & Creation.” Evangelical Quarterly 87, no. 2 (April 2015): 99–113.
Mann, Robert B. “Physics at the Theological Frontiers.” Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith 66, no. 1 (March 2014): 2–12.
Mayes, Benjamin T G. “Creation, Science, and God’s Omnipotence.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 82, no. 3–4 (July 2018): 290–301.
Minguzzi, Ettore. “Augustine of Hippo’s Philosophy of Time Meets General Relativity.” KronoScope 14, no. 1 (1/1/2014 2014): 71–89.
Oliver, Simon. “Augustine on Creation, Providence and Motion.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 18, no. 4 (October 2016): 379–398.
Ottati, Douglas F. “Which Way Is up?: An Experiment in Christian Theology and Modern Cosmology.” Interpretation 59, no. 4 (October 2005): 370–381.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “Notes on the Alleged Conflict Between Religion and Science.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 40, no. 3 (September 2005): 585.
Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.
Russell, Robert John. “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: From Deadlock to Interaction.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 47, no. 4 (December 2012): 997.
———. “Resurrection, Eschatology, and the Challenge of Big Bang Cosmology.” Interpretation 70, no. 1 (January 2016): 48–60.
Schaab, Gloria L. “In the Travail of the Cosmos: God and Suffering in the Evolving Universe.” Heythrop Journal 58, no. 1 (January 2017): 91.
Soskice, Janet. “Aquinas and Augustine on Creation and God as ‘Eternal Being.’” New Blackfriars 95, no. 1056 (March 2014): 190.
Timm, Roger E. “Let’s Not Miss the Theology of the Creation Accounts.” Currents in Theology and Mission 13, no. 2 (April 1986): 97–105.
Trafton, Jennifer M. “God...the Final Frontier: Big Bang Cosmology and the Design Argument.” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa 24, no. 2 (2000): 1–21.
Trager, Eugene P. “The Concept of a Non‐Material Reality: Its Implications for Science and Religion.” Cross Currents 69, no. 2 (June 2019): 174.
Transcripts. “Biblical Series XIII: Jacob’s Ladder Transcript.” Jordan Peterson. Last modified April 23, 2018. Accessed June 16, 2020. https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/transcripts/biblical-series-xiii/.
Tune, Anders S. “Quantum Theory and the Resurrection of Jesus.” Dialog 43, no. 3 (2004): 166–176.
Van Till, Howard J. “Is Special Creationism a Heresy.” Christian Scholar’s Review 22, no. 4 (June 1993): 380–395.
Walsh, Anthony, and Marc Ruffinengo. “Ideology in Physics: Ontological Naturalism and Theism Confront Big Bang, Cosmic Fine Tuning, and the Multiverse of M-Theory.” Journal of Ideology 39, no. 1 (January 2018): 1.
Welker, Michael. “Creation: Big Bang or the Work of Seven Days?” Theology Today 52, no. 2 (July 1995): 173–187.
Życiński, Józef Abp. “Metaphysics and Epistemology in Stephen Hawking’s Theory of the Creation of the Universe.” Zygon31, no. 2 (June 1996): 269–284.
“Big Bang.” Answers in Genesis. Accessed July 4, 2020. https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/.
“CHURCH FATHERS: Confessions, Book XI (St. Augustine).” Accessed July 5, 2020. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110111.htm.
“CHURCH FATHERS: Confessions, Book XII (St. Augustine).” Accessed July 5, 2020. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110112.htm.
“Has the Big Bang Been Saved?” Accessed July 4, 2020. https://www.icr.org/article/has-big-bang-been-saved.
“St. Augustine and Cosmology | Villanova University.” Accessed June 30, 2020. https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/anthro/Previous_Lectures/sustain/AugustineCosmology0.html.
“SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Beginning of the Duration of Creatures (Prima Pars, Q. 46).” Accessed July 6, 2020. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm.
“SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Distinction of Things in General (Prima Pars, Q. 47).” Accessed July 6, 2020. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1047.htm.
“SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Procession of Creatures from God, and of the First Cause of All Things (Prima Pars, Q. 44).” Accessed July 6, 2020. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1044.htm.
Endnotes
[1] William E. Carroll, “The Genesis Machine: Physics and Creation,” Modern Age 53, no. 1–2 (January 1, 2011), 115.
[2] “Big Bang,” Answers in Genesis, accessed July 4, 2020, https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/.
[3] “Has the Big Bang Been Saved?,” accessed July 4, 2020, https://www.icr.org/article/has-big-bang-been-saved.
[4] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books, 1998), 174.
[5] An example of something that, for me, would be a hill to die on from the creation account would be the doctrine of imago dei.
[6] Ernest C. Lucas, “The Bible, Science & Creation,” Evangelical Quarterly 87, no. 2 (April 2015), 99.
[7] Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), 39.
[8] Ibid, 41.
[9] Ibid, 43.
[10] Ibid, 46.
[11] Robert John Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: From Deadlock to Interaction,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 47, no. 4 (December 2012), 1,000.
[12] Ibid, 1,001.
[13] Romans: 19-23 (ESV).
[14] Roger E Timm, “Let’s Not Miss the Theology of the Creation Accounts,” Currents in Theology and Mission 13, no. 2 (April 1986), 102.
[15] Ibid, 105.
[16] Revelation 12:3-4 (ESV)
[17] Revelation 16:8 (ESV)
[18] Revelation 21: 1, 5 (ESV)
[19] Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology,” 1,006.
[20] I acknowledge that there are more issues at play with the question of the Big Bang. Some classic examples are: Was there death before the fall? How does evolution factor into this? What about the historical Adam and Eve? These are all critical questions to consider that are beyond the scope of this paper. This paper asks the question you have to answer before you can even get to those questions: Is Big Bang cosmology consistent with the Genesis account of origins of the universe and the Revelation account of ending of the universe? Once that question has been answered, then it is necessary to explore those other questions.
[21] It should be noted here that, even within the larger framework of the Big Bang, there are theories that would attempt to unseat the theory as it is described here. For example, perhaps the universe has always existed in an eternal state of expansion and contraction.
[22] Michael Welker, “Creation: Big Bang or the Work of Seven Days?,” Theology Today 52, no. 2 (July 1995), 175.
[23] John M. Frame, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology (P & R Publishing, 2015), 109.
[24] “CHURCH FATHERS: Confessions, Book XII (St. Augustine),” accessed July 5, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110112.htm.
[25] “CHURCH FATHERS: Confessions, Book XI (St. Augustine),” accessed July 5, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110111.htm.
[26] In The City of God, Book 12, Chapter 10, Augustine responded to the dominant philosophies of his day about the immutability of the universe by saying: “Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been…They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.” https://gutenberg.org/files/45304/45304-h/45304-h.htm
[27] Wynand Vladimir De Beer, “The Patristic Understanding of the Six Days (Hexaemeron),” Journal of Early Christian History 5, no. 2 (2015): 7-8.
[28] Howard J Van Till, “Is Special Creationism a Heresy,” Christian Scholar’s Review 22, no. 4 (June 1993): 390-391.
[29] Simon Oliver, “Augustine on Creation, Providence and Motion,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 18, no. 4 (October 2016): 389-390.
[30] Ettore Minguzzi, “Augustine of Hippo’s Philosophy of Time Meets General Relativity,” KronoScope 14, no. 1 (1/1/2014 2014), 87.
[31] Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Wesley Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004), 174-175.
[32] Ibid, 230.
[33] Frame, A History of Western Philosophy and Theology, 147.
[34] Ibid, 147.
[35] Ibid, 148.
[36] “SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Distinction of Things in General (Prima Pars, Q. 47),” accessed July 6, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1047.htm.
[37] William E. Carroll, “Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology: Creation and Beginnings,” Science & Christian Belief 24, no. 1 (April 2012), 14.
[38] Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, 47.
[39] Anthony Walsh and Marc Ruffinengo, “Ideology in Physics: Ontological Naturalism and Theism Confront Big Bang, Cosmic Fine Tuning, and the Multiverse of M-Theory,” Journal of Ideology 39, no. 1 (January 2018), 3.
[40] While I do believe in a beginning to space and time, I think it is important to show how the ideas of Thomas Aquinas are still useful and relevant even if it comes to be shown that the Big Bang was not the beginning or if some future discovery in cosmology or physics were to somehow prove an eternal universe. Would such a discovery wreck the Christian faith? I believe Aquinas has already provided a potential answer to that question for Christians, and it is important to consider here. Even with some future hypothetical discovery of an eternal universe, it would not negate either Genesis or Revelation. Both continue to require God as the necessary being upon which everything else in the cosmos is contingent.
[41] Carroll, “Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology,” 17.
[42] “SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Beginning of the Duration of Creatures (Prima Pars, Q. 46),” accessed July 6, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1046.htm.
[43] Józef Abp Życiński, “Metaphysics and Epistemology in Stephen Hawking’s Theory of the Creation of the Universe,” Zygon 31, no. 2 (June 1996), 275.
[44] Michael Heller, “Cosmological Singularity and the Creation of the Universe,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 35, no. 3 (September 2000): 682.
[45] Carroll, “Aquinas and Contemporary Cosmology,” 18.
[46] “SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The Beginning of the Duration of Creatures (Prima Pars, Q. 46).”
[47] William E. Carroll, “Creation and Science in the Middle Ages,” New Blackfriars 88, no. 1018 (November 2007), 688.
[48] Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Notes on the Alleged Conflict Between Religion and Science,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 40, no. 3 (September 2005), 586.
[49] Ibid, 587.
[50] In evangelical circles, we do a good job holding the special revelation in high regard, as we should. We do not do such a good job working on integrating the truths of special revelation with the truths of general revelation. While there are certainly exceptions to this, broadly speaking, our Catholic brothers and sisters have done more wrestling with this, and this is anecdotally seen in the number of Catholic scholars and publications cited in this paper. Perhaps our Reformation cry of Sola Scriptura has had some unintended consequences.
[51] For the sake of this paper, I’m primarily trying to show the overlap and convergence. My personal belief is that Scripture is always true but too often Christian fail to fully wrestle with truth claims in other disciplines as way to help sharpen and refine our own theological views.
[52] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford University Press, USA, 2011), 298-299.
[53] Ibid, 269.
[54] Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Turtleback, 1995), 55.