Editor’s word: Over the three months of February, March and April 2025, we have invited guest writer Terence Ho to share with us his philosophical and theological musings and contemplations on the bigger questions and topics of life. Terence will share on his thoughts on the ideas of perfection (February), permanence (March), and existence, life and consciousness (April) in an easily readable and accessible manner. Enjoy!
Credo Special
7April 2025
The Why and How of the Universe
Relationships may offer an answer to the puzzle of existence – why is there anything at all? This age-old philosophical question lies beyond the realm of science, which addresses only the how, and not the ultimate why. Those who subscribe to naturalism – the belief that everything arises from natural processes, with the supernatural excluded – may deem this a pointless question to which there is no answer, since there may in fact be no deeper reason for existence.
Even setting aside the why of existence and life, the how – at a fairly fundamental level – continues to elude scientists.
Looking at the universe we find ourselves in, the beauty and order of the natural world is astounding. Intuition and experience tell us that order doesn’t arise spontaneously from chaos in the absence of design. The entropy or disorder in the universe is always increasing – this is just the law of probability at work. However, the universe appears otherwise. Heavier elements are formed from lighter ones, while life is remarkable in its complexity and variety. Even the simplest of cells – the building blocks of life – are incredibly intricate in structure and function.[i] Some contend that this complexity is indicative of design, just as the existence of a watch warrants belief in an intelligent watchmaker.[ii]
Many scientists, including those who identify as atheists or agnostics, are struck by the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe that makes it possible to sustain life. This is the suggestion that if certain fundamental physical constants had turned out only slightly differently from those observed, the universe would have evolved very differently and would be unable to support life as we know it.
The late theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking commented:
“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”[iii]
The UK’s Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, a religious agnostic like Hawking, identified six physical constants in which slight variations would have drastically altered the evolution of the universe and made it impossible to sustain life.[iv]
Unsurprisingly, the religiously inclined have seized upon this as evidence of a cosmic designer. Many share the view of theoretical physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne that “Anthropic fine tuning is too remarkable to be dismissed as just a happy accident.”[v]
A common charge laid against religion is the “God of the gaps”, the notion that the religiously inclined seize upon gaps in scientific knowledge as proof or evidence of God. This is a fallacy, it is said – a mere “argument from ignorance”.
Thus in times past the ancient Greeks ascribed thunder to Zeus, and the Norse attributed it to the hammer of Thor. Now that lighting and thunder are properly understood in terms of electrostatic charges in the atmosphere, a divine explanation is unnecessary. According to sceptics, God would be squeezed out of the equation as science closes gaps in our understanding of the natural world.
The opposite has, in fact, happened. Like an onion whose layers are progressively peeled, advances in science over the past century have revealed mysteries yet more profound. In particular, quantum mechanics, which describes the properties of nature at the atomic and subatomic level, has defied reconciliation with other known branches of physics and introduced uncertainty at the heart of physics. The prevailing scientific paradigm is no longer Newton’s clockwork universe, where everything is determined by measurable cause and effect, but a universe where outcomes are inherently uncertain. Quantum phenomena are counterintuitive and even paradoxical. For instance, quantum entanglement, described by Einstein as “spooky action at a distance”, continues to confound scientists today. By revealing gaping holes in our understanding of the universe, the new physics has left open the door for anything from Eastern mysticism to traditional religious beliefs.
Paul Davies contends that “both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too.”[vi]
Barriers to Life and Mind
Setting aside the fundamental issues of universal existence and purpose, humanity has yet to surmount two practical challenges of great import – the creation of life from inorganic matter, and the creation of general artificial intelligence or consciousness. Despite all that science has achieved, the barriers to life and mind stubbornly endure.
Just as it was two thousand years ago, the creation of life – or its resurrection from the dead – remain beyond human capability. In fact, the processes by which life arose from inorganic matter (called abiogenesis) are still poorly understood. There is no generally accepted model for the origin of life. Among competing hypotheses, one is that a “primordial soup” of organic compounds arose in the young Earth’s chemically reducing atmosphere, and these transformed into more complex organic polymers, ultimately resulting in life. Another is “panspermia”, the hypothesis that microscopic life arose outside Earth by unknown mechanisms, and was carried to our planet by space dust or meteorites. Further, it is not enough for science to explain how life arose, but also how it became capable of reproducing itself.
The other barrier humanity has been unable to breach is that of the mind. While we have developed computers that can handily beat the best human players in chess, the holy grail of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the creation of Artificial General Intelligence, also called full AI or strong AI. This refers to the ability of AI to learn any intellectual task a human being can, which some also relate to sentience, consciousness or self-awareness.
Notwithstanding the huge advances in AI of late, leading thinkers are divided as to whether artificial general intelligence is in fact achievable at all. British mathematician and Nobel physics laureate Roger Penrose is among those who believe it is not. American philosopher John Searle contends that because consciousness is biological in essence, it is impossible to build a non-living machine that is conscious.
As long as life and consciousness remain a mystery, those inclined towards faith may point to something behind the veil, perhaps even a supernatural creator.
Arguments from Morality and Relationships
Why should one embrace specific theistic beliefs, or for that matter the Christian theistic system among the smorgasbord of religious beliefs on offer? The answer may have to do with a belief in absolute morality, as well as the human tendency to ascribe significance to love, loss and relationships.
While science is the pursuit of empirical truth without consideration for subjective feelings, it is difficult to ignore its implications for human value systems. As many have pointed out, hard determinism – the theory that all events, including human choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes – implies that people cannot be held accountable for their actions, no matter how destructive or evil these appear to be. Even for those who allow for free will, the basis for a common morality is difficult to pin down without a moral order fixed by a cosmic lawgiver. Moral values would be grounded merely in tradition, differing from one society to another, or seen as the product of natural selection – the propagation of genes or social traits that give individuals and communities a better chance of survival. Many find this unsatisfactory, believing that human conscience suggests there are common, objective moral truths. This constitutes the argument from morality or conscience for the existence of God.
There is also the near-universal feeling of love, which to many of us is more than just physiology or biochemistry at work, and equally the sense of grief and loss at death and separation. Again, theistic belief infuses these emotions with significance.
The Christian faith accords with perceptions of the ideal – the perfect relationship between Creator and created beings, as well as perfect relationships among created beings. It also speaks to the human longing for permanence and to enjoy relationships forever. In this paradigm, the purpose of the universe may well be to enable such relationships.
The sheer vastness of the universe is mind-blowing. Our galaxy, comprising an estimated 100-400 billion stars, is itself one among trillions (some now say hundreds of billions) of galaxies in the universe. That the earth is suspended in such vastness may be as remarkable to a young child as the mythological notion of the earth being supported by elephants resting on a World Turtle. Many believe that in a universe of such scale, life is bound to have independently arisen on planets with habitable conditions similar to Earth’s. It is therefore surprising that we have not already made contact with sentient extraterrestrials. If one day we were to be visited or contacted by aliens, this too would not rule out the existence of God. That we have not encountered any form of life elsewhere (whether sentient or otherwise), however, suggests that there may just be something special about life on earth.
There are also attributes of humanity that set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. These include man’s evaluative nature, our pursuit of ideals and our desire for lasting significance. The human capacity for cruelty does not appear to be shared by other animals. Nor does our ability to accumulate knowledge and advance technology over successive generations. Some have suggested that human beings’ unique attributes, particularly our moral compass, are what it means to be made in the image of God. These allow for a richer and more meaningful relationship between God and man than with the rest of creation.
Science tells us that the elements of the universe, including those that make up organic molecules, were formed in stars and dispersed by supernovae. This makes human beings stardust with the capacity to think and reflect, to feel and to love. If human beings were created to be in a relationship with God, it would not be a stretch to conclude that the earth, our solar system, Milky Way and the universe itself would have been created specifically to sustain beings with whom and among whom relationships are possible. Earth, then, would not be just any planet among trillions, but a special one endowed with the unique conditions for life and relationships.
My young daughter loves her plush toy, a bunny she was given at birth. She often pretends it is her daughter, talking to it and mothering it. But she is old enough to know it is just a toy which is unable to reciprocate her love. Far more meaningful is her relationship with her younger brother. They have fights and disagreements every now and again, but the delight they have in each other’s company at other times is priceless. In their joy and laughter may lie the answer to life, the universe and everything.
[i] Scientists are far from fully understanding the inner workings of the cell. See, for instance, Robert Krulwich, “We Built the World’s Simplest Cell – but Dunno How It Works, National Geographic, 21 April 2016, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/we-built-the-worlds-simplest-cell-but-dunno-how-it-works.
[ii] English clergyman William Paley made the watchmaker analogy in his 1802 book Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the Appearances of Nature.
[iii] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 7, 125.
[iv] Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 1999)
[v] John C. Polkinghorne, Science and Theology: An Introduction (London: SPCK, 1998), 75.
[vi] Paul Davies, “Taking Science on Faith,” New York Times, 24 November, 2007.
Terence Ho is an academic who has written books on public policy and governance in Singapore.</em