Why religion Science?

The spontaneous emergence of life and the human mind - the process is so unlikely that it makes no sense to even consider it. The physical and astrophysical properties of the Universe should be mutually consistent with such care and the likelihood of an accidental coincidence of all conditions so small that for the emergence of mankind on Earth, it would take a lot of orders of order more than the time of the real life of our Universe.

But we exist and can ask a sacramental question: how did this extremely incredible event happen?

Two explanations are possible.

First. The universe was created by an infinitely wise designer, in other words, God, who thought out everything in advance. The universe is such, because such a trader God created it. This is theological path.

The second path: there is not one universe, but a huge number of them (it is possible that infinitely large!). But if the universes are almost infinitely a lot, then with a probability almost equal to one, there is such a universe where all conditions for the emergence of life and reason are fulfilled. We live in this universe. In the multimony, the appearance of such a universe is inevitable.

Physical multi -year solves the paradox of the “anthropic principle”. Is it possible to combine the ideas about multiple with dogmas of monotheistic religions?

In Canada, at the University of Alberta, a theoretic physicist, Professor Don N. Page, who, along with the development of modern ideas of quantum mechanics, is trying to reconcile them with the provisions of Christianity, being a Christian-gospel by his faith. In his articles “Theological argument for the Everett Multiovers” [ 1 ], “God loves Multiversion so much?” [ 2 ] Page argues that the existence of Multimory does not contradict the divine plan, how the evolutionary theory does not contradict it, against which many church (and not only church) figures are opposed.

“Evolution ,” Page notes, “ does not refute the existence of God or a certain common project ... Before Darwin, some Christians represented a miracle of man as evidence of an individual and individual plan. Now some Christians represent the miracle of the exact fitting of the world standing as evidence of theism and also a separate and individual program of the creation of these constant God. ”

According to Page, both ideas are erroneous. The mistake is that in both cases the plan of the Creator is infinitely more grandiose than traditional religions believe.

God is omnipotent and omniscient, and nothing could prevent him from creating more than one universe - ours - but a great (possibly infinite) many universes, in one of which humanity arose as a natural result of the fulfillment of a divine plan.

The anthropic principle here gets along with theism, and to the question, why did God create so many universes, if only one is enough to create a person, Page answers the oncoming question: “Why do you think that creating multi -grace is a more difficult task than creating the only universe?”

“Since, ” Page continues, “ God can create everything that is logically possible and that it consists with His nature and goals, then, apparently, there are no difficulties for him to create as many universes as he wants. Perhaps he prefers the elegance and principles by which he creates a huge multi -verse, and not the only universe, that is, saves principles, not materials. ”

In other words, when 1 God decided to create a material universe (or a huge set of universes - Multiversion), he was guided by the principle of beauty and perfection. But the beauty and perfection of non -material entities that he had to create, he “thought” about the beauty and perfection of physical laws and mathematical ideas, the basis of these laws laid down. Before creating the universe (or multi -verse), God designed the laws of nature, in accordance with which the universe was created.

And then Page, being, on the one hand, as a physicist, and on the other - a Christian, comes to two important conclusions. First: if you choose between the two variants of the physical picture of the world, then in one picture the wave function of the quantum system collapses when interacting, leaving the only version of the universe. In another, the wave function does not collapse, and then not the Universe is created, but a multi-mass: an Evettic multi-year interpretation-correlated universes with different quantum-mechanical outcomes. From the point of view of beauty, elegance, simplicity and perfection, of course, the variant of the universe without collapse of the wave function, which generates intractable philosophical and physical contradictions, is preferable.

Of course, God chose beauty and perfection and created not the universe, but multimortery - a multi -verse. In addition, having chosen such a scenario, the Creator decided along the way two more, it would seem insoluble (but not for him!) The tasks:

1) in the multi -verse there is no need for an accurate fitting of world permanent, which requires an anthropic principle;

2) The contradiction with free will disappears, the eternal theme of the discussions of theologians and philosophers. Yes, a person has unconditional freedom of choice: all options are carried out - each in his Universe. And God, being omniscient, of course, knows what choice a person will make, what does not infringe on free will, since God does not affect the choice by a man of the universe in which he will be as a result of choice.

However, there is an objection that Christians are talking about - opponents of the idea of ​​multi -world. “If, ” they say, “ the multi-ruff is quite great for the existence of other civilizations that sin and needed that Christ came and redeem their sins with something like His death on the cross here, on earth, then His death may not be a unique phenomenon. Meanwhile, in the Bible in the Message to the Romans it is said (6:10): “For that he died, he died once for sin, and what lives for God.”

“Well, ” Page replies to this argument, “ the Bible is given to people on Earth, and therefore it is unreasonable to demand that it describe everything that God can or cannot do with other creatures that He may have created anywhere else. We can only interpret the Bible in the sense that the death of Christ here on earth is unique to our human civilization. ”

What happens if you accept Page argument? Science is quite compatible with religious positions and texts.

In my opinion, comparisons of religious texts with modern scientific data harm both religion and science.

I’ll try to justify my point of view on the example of the article by B. Zimmerman “Constellations and the Galaxy in the Talmud”, published some time ago in the Israeli journal “Nitsotzot” (“Sparks”). I will give a rather lengthy quote:

“The similarity between the data of modern science about the number of galaxies and stars in the universe and their number according to the Talmud is simply amazing. Those who read the Talmud are well signed by an excerpt from the Turahot treatise:

“ I created (we are talking about God. - P.A. ) Twelve Zodiac constellations, and thirty armades have thirty legions in each constellation, and thirty clusters have thirty curtains in each legion, and there are thirty groups in each cohort, and in each group there are three hundred and sixty -five hundred million stars, one hundred and hundred, one hundred and hundred, one hundred, one hundred, one hundred and one hundred. millions of stars for each of the days of the year. ”

In this passage you can find interesting scientific data. First of all, it contains the number of stars in the universe. Having moved the numbers that are part of the star hierarchy, according to the passage from the Talmud, we will get a unit with nineteen zeros.

Modern astronomy, using the data of observations and calculations of stars, galaxies and their clusters, also gives a fairly accurate assessment of the number of stars in the universe, and this number reaches a unit with nineteen zeros! The correspondence between the data of the Talmud and modern astronomy is more than amazing.

The scientific classification of star systems in the universe is very noteworthy:

1 - stars, 2 - ball stellar clusters, 3 - scattered star clusters, 4 - galactic sleeves, 5 - galaxies, 6 - local accumulations of galaxies, 7 - large -scale accumulations of galaxies.

But after all, Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish in the Talmud divided the star systems into the same seven classes (stars, groups, cohors, clusters, legions, armada and constellations of the zodiac). Another amazing resemblance! ”

The logic of Tsimmerman's reasoning is understandable. Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish knew what science came to only now. Therefore, God himself spoke with Rabbi and informed him of the truth.

Meanwhile, the most popular attempts to compare today scientific (in particular, astronomical) data with canonical biblical texts play, generally speaking, a bad role.

Firstly, because they belittle the sacred texts. A religious person initially knows that the Old Testament is a divine revelation. No mathematician, for example, will prove Euclid's postulate that there can be a straight line between two points and, moreover, only one. So why prove another axiom, equally obvious to any religious person?

Second. Science is developing. What is considered exactly known today, tomorrow can be doubted and even rejected how the ideas of the heat and world ether were rejected at one time - it would seem confirmed by experience.

I will return to the text of Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakisha. If you change the numbers mentioned by Rabbi, it will turn out 1019. When the article by Zimmerman went out of print, astrophysicists really estimated the number of stars in the visible part of the Universe by about the same number. What follows from this? Yes exactly nothing! Unfortunately, this was only a temporary coincidence, since astronomers do not recalculate billions of billions of stars (as it may seem to non -specialists). They evaluate the number of stars using indirect data. For example, data on how much dark matter is in the universe. One and a half decades have passed since the publication of the article by Zimmerman, and the assessment of the number of stars has increased by a hundred times - because the regions more distant from our galaxy became available for study in telescopes. And what would Tsimmerman say about Rabbi Lakisha now? ..

And what about the number seven? Seven levels of star hierarchy were described by Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish, and seven levels of star hierarchy are known to modern astrophysics. No, and this comparison did not benefit either religion or science. The Creator (in the text of Rabbi Lakisha) says: “I created twelve zodiac constellations,” and it is in these constellations that he then assesses the number of stars he created. Zimmerman, following Rabbi Lakish, calls one of the steps of the star hierarchy: Zodiac constellations.

But on modern star maps there are 88 constellations, of which only 12 are zodiac. What to do with the others? To consider an additional, eighth, step of the hierarchy or to include stars from the "extra" constellations to the general list? By the way, after all, the assessment of the number of stars, judging by the passage from the Talmud, also refers only to the 12 constellations of the zodiac, and not to the whole sky. How then can this number with the data of modern astronomy? ..

The trouble with Tsimmerman's reasoning is also that the information he cited about the number of steps in the modern scientific star hierarchy is simply incorrect! Cimmerman describes seven steps, without mentioning, for example, formations such as star associations that differ from both ball and scattered star clusters. This is the eighth step of the hierarchy, and it breaks the structure built by Zimmerman. And one more thing: why did the author stop at large -scale accumulations of galaxies? There are “supercrasses” and, for example, such a gigantic “design” as Laniaca. Meanwhile, the hierarchy should contain seven and only seven steps so that it can be compared with information from the Talmud.

Attempts to compare canonical religious texts with scientific information (I cited as an example of the physicist of Page and the religious author of Tsimmerman - in reality there are a lot of such works now!) It began not so long ago. Imagine that such an idea would have occurred to an outstanding astronomer 150 years ago. He finds the text of Rabbi Lakisha, discovers a seven -speed hierarchy, checks with modern information and does not find anything in common! After all, the astronomer of the 19th century had no idea about galaxies, not to mention their accumulations and supercrasses. And the number of stars known at that time was limited to the Milky way, there was no question of any billions of billions. What should an honest scientist, who tried to reconcile science and religion? “Gentlemen,” he had to say, “what is written in the Talmud has nothing to do with what we see in the sky. And then ... "

It is good that no one and a half years ago no one tried to look for scientific confirmation of religious texts. How many uncertain discussions were avoided at that time! It would be nice to do without such discussions today.

Pavel Amnuel, astrophysicist, science writer, science popularizer

1. Arxiv: 1212.5608V1 [Physics.gen-PH]
2. Arxiv: 0801.0246V5 [Physics.gen-ph] 17 Jan 2008

1 We will use this term, more understandable to us, although God, in theory, “exists” outside the space-time, and the concept of “when” does not make sense to him.