INTRODUCTION
Before the Covid lockdowns, I had the privilege of being a lector for the Easter Vigil Mass at our local nursing home. The nun who made the arrangements set my readings as the first, the Creation story from Genesis 1, and the Epistle. “Since you’re a physicist” she told me, “the Creation should be of special interest to you.” Indeed it was. As it was at the first Easter vigil Mass I attended 27 years ago, when I was Baptized and Confirmed in the Church.
GENESIS 1: CARDINAL RATZINGER, “IN THE BEGINNING...”
During the first years after my conversion, I had a problem reconciling Genesis 1, the scriptural account of creation, with what physics told me about how the universe began. Fortunately in those early years I took a very fine course on the Old Testament, as part of a Diocesan Ecclesial Lay Ministry program. In that course I learned that one could interpret the Old Testament in different ways:
- literally (this would mean as the author intended it);
- figuratively (as an analogue or story);
- anagologically (as a mystical parable);
The priest who taught the course also told me to read Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, “In the Beginning…A Catholic Understanding of the Story of the Creation and Fall. That message resolved my concern:
“…the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed.”— Pope Benedict XVI (writing as Cardinal Ratzinger), In the Beginning…
SCRIPTURE AND CREATIO EX NIHILO
Reconciling Genesis 1 and cosmology was no longer a problem; no need for cognitive dissonance.
But there was another difficulty. Catholic dogma states the universe was created out of nothing, “Ex Nihilo.” This is certainly consistent with the Big Bang hypothesis. Now where in the Old Testament does “Creatio ex Nihilo” occur? According to one of my friends, an expert in Hebrew (he was an Irish-American physician whose retirement was spent in Scripture scholarship) the Hebrew words, Tohu-Bohu, describing what was before Creation, do not mean “nothingness,” but rather “chaos, topsy-turvy.” Such a description agrees with a “quantum fluctuation” event as creation, favored by agnostic physicists who would like to negate the Big Bang explanation. Well, is there anything in the Old Testament to point to Creatio ex Nihilo? Here’s one quote:
I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.—2 Maccabees 7:28, (KJV)
And in the New Testament, here’s another:
“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible”—Hebrews 11:3 (KJV)
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH, ST AUGUSTINE, AQUINAS AND CREATIO EX NIHILO
Creatio ex Nihilo as a doctrine was made secure by Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd Century AD. He declared:
And what great thing is it if God made the world out of existent materials? For even a human artist, when he gets material from some one, makes of it what he pleases But the power of God is manifested in this, that out of things that are not He makes whatever He pleases.” [emphasis added].—Theophilus of Antioch, Letter to Autolycus, Chapter IV
St. Augustine of Hippo gave a final touch to this doctrine by positing that in addition to the creation of material stuff, time began at the instant of creation:
“…no time passed before the world, because no creature was made by whose course it might pass.” —” City of God,” book 11, ch.4.
This view is in remarkable accord with modern cosmology:
“For Augustine…God did not create time at a certain moment, but non-temporally caused all time to exist.” —Keith Ward, in “Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature”.
St. Thomas Aquinas has argued that reason alone cannot demonstrate that the universe was not eternal:
By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist—St. Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologica,” Part I, Question 46
CREATIO EX NIHILO: THE TRUTHS OF SCIENCE OR THE TRUTHS OF FAITH?
Nevertheless, there is empirical evidence that the universe began as a singularity in space-time some 14 billion years ago. Should we be happy that contemporary physics and Catholic teaching do not disagree? Perhaps, but we should acknowledge that the “truths” of science change, unlike Catholic doctrine, This was the argument that Abbe LeMaitre made to Pope Pius XII, to dissuade the Pope from incorporating Big Bang theory as official Catholic teaching. Moreover, despite the empirical evidence that confirms the Big Bang, there are problems with the theory. I refer the reader to Essay 3, Creatio ex Nihilo, of my web-book, “A Science Primer for the Faithful,” for a discussion of these.
FINAL THOUGHTS
One final word: not only Creation, but also the wondrous, intricate design that yields the universe and biology as we know it—the Anthropic Coincidences—lead us to Psalm 19A as a celebration of the Trinitarian God as Creator:
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.” Psalm 19 (KJV)
That verse means more to me than the Big Bang Theory, but I’m happy that they are consonant.
Note
*This article was originally published in Catholic Stand. The featured image is from: “In the Beginning. Stained-glass window at Church of Our Savior, MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), 2011 South Federal Hwy, Boynton Beach, Florida.jpg” (Wikimedia Commons image).
Existence plays a role in one of the names of God. God’s relationship with creation plays a part in another of God’s names. There is a downloadable PDF online that is a summarization of lectures given by a rabbi about the Exodus titled “Exodus from Egypt: The Hidden Agenda”
*
https://staff.ncsy.org/education/education/education/education/material/C8HxYivMlL/exodus-from-egypt:-the-hidden-agenda/
*
In this presentation the rabbi covers the plagues, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, and the names of God. He says that Kel-Shakei contains an abbreviation of a Jewish phrase were God said to His world enough. He goes into YHVH(YHWH), which is an amalgam of the three Hebrew words for existence: past, present, and future. This is the name of God in His essence. The names of God starts on page 6 of the PDF. It is an interesting presentation given from a Jewish perspective.
Once people start deciding that parts of the Bible are not literal, there is no end to it. If Creation is not literal, then how can you say that the Fall was literal?
Mankind knows that matter is created out of nothing when an atom is split. Now. When I was in high school no one had a clue that matter was created & destroyed during the splitting of an atom. I was taught in high school as pure fact that the only subatomic particles were the proton, neutron, & electron by someone with a doctorate in Chemistry. That same teacher taught us that the Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy was true everywhere in the universe. Now we know they are not true in all situations.
Why should I be concerned about making sure my faith & “science” agree? Because I am not in the least.
Statements about what happened millions of years ago are not based in science as they cannot be tested & retested for verification. And as a physicist, you will know that the very models (carbon dating) used to determine age in years is a man made formula that is based on a unprovable man made belief of Uniformitarianism which basically excludes God from the equation.
Christian Teacher, I won’t respond directly to your comments because it’s clear from them you don’t know how science works or what it’s all about. If you would like to learn that I suggest you go to the Magis Center site where I have posted several articles on those matters. Otherwise, like many other advocates of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, you are prone to invincible ignorance. Both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have said there is no war between science an Catholic teaching. In the words of Pope St. John Paul II, “Truth cannot contradict truth.” I would prefer to take their opinion over yours.
The Magis Center website is awe-inspiring for those such as myself who are functionally illiterate when it comes to physics beyond a high school level. (And, to be brutally honest, I wasn’t so great at it in high school, either.) I can lose myself for hours there. Also, Dr. K, your mention of it gives me an excuse to put in a plug for Father Spitzer’s book, “New Proofs for the Existence of God.” I read it several summers ago and I still go back to it to refresh my recollection, usually to equip myself for discussions with agnostics. (I don’t waste my time with atheists, they are, by and large, too anxious to have a fight rather than a discussion.)
Thanks for this post, as well.
Christian Teacher, I won’t respond directly to your comments because it’s clear from them you don’t know how science works or what it’s all about. If you would like to learn that I suggest you go to the Magis Center site where I have posted several articles on those matters. Otherwise, like many other advocates of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, you are prone to invincible ignorance. Both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have said there is no war between science an Catholic teaching. In the words of Pope St. John Paul II, “Truth cannot contradict truth.” I would prefer to take their opinion over yours.
——————-
I have a degree in science as well, I just wasn’t going to bring it up as many who are educated in “science” are intelligent but are moral/spiritual fools. In fact, I have taught chemistry & physics at the college level.
You do not answer the point I made about the Fall because you do not have an answer.
You put forth a false scenario of 2 choices & falsely claim that one choice excludes the other from being true. Believing Genesis 1 (notice the artificial limit that must be put in place to support the argument—why limit it to just Genesis 1 & not Include the first 11 chapters of Genesis as some have try to teach) is literal does not invalidate the Catholic Faith. To claim it does is a falsehood.
Science would tell us that it is impossible for a virgin to give birth to a child. Science would also tell us that the physical body of Jesus Christ could not rise from the dead. Yet there is no contradiction to the Catholic Faith by believing the reality of science in these areas and still believing that a virgin gave birth & Christ, bodily, rose from the dead.
Christian Teacher, many scientists (including myself before I retired and became Catholic) do not know what science is all about, that is to say know very little about the history or philosophy of science. Teaching about lever problems or how to balance chemical equations does not mean one knows how science works, nor does (as in my case) managing a research group, refereeing papers and grant proposals. Moreover, you’ve set up a straw man in assuming that I believe science can explain everything. i’ve written many articles about the limits of science. Please see, for example, “This physicist believes in miracles” here:
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2022/02/05/this-physicist-believes-in-miracles/
And with respect to the Fall, monogenesis, and all those other knotty theological questions, I prefer to take what Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have to say as defining Catholic faith, rather than your opinion.
BK, you have free will & can choose to believe what & who you wish.
Moreover, you’ve set up a straw man in assuming that I believe science can explain everything. i’ve written many articles about the limits of science.
——————
Lol. BK, you have set up your own straw man by claiming I have made assumptions about your belief. I have noticed that this is a technique you use regularly when you disagree. You have used it more than once with me in this strand. No where have I said you believe science can explain all things. I am not responsible for your assumptions about what I am assuming. Your explicit statement that I am “you are prone to invincible ignorance” is a major assumption (& insult) you have made about me, for instance, based on my willingness to express disagreement with you on a complex matter.
The Church makes no official pronouncements on matters of science. That is not within her rightful purview. Rightfully, the Church advances the faith as given to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Our modern day popes have often confused their personal opinions & thoughts with Church teaching to the detriment of all.
As far as I know, it is blatantly false to claim that believing Gen 1 to be literal is an invalidation of the Catholic Faith. Do either of the popes you reference state plainly that believing in a literal Gen 1 invalidates the Catholic Faith? If they do, let me know because I, and many others, will need to leave the Catholic Church.
Thank you Christian Teacher for allowing me free will to believe. I think that is also given in the Catechism, freedom of conscience. Your invincible ignorance pertains to what you say about science, and by invincible ignorance one means beliefs that can not be changed by rational argument. What you said in your first comment about what science can’t do is wrong. If you choose to believe in the literal truth of Genesis 1, and also believe in the internet, satellites, and other phenomena explained by current theories (e.g. corrections from special and general relativity for satellite time signals), I can only envy your capacity for cognitive dissonance. By the way, speaking of straw men, where in any of my comments did I say believing Genesis 1 to be an invalidation of Catholic teaching? And with respect to what Pope Benedict said generally, I’ll repeat the statement In my quote “The Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor is it intended to be such.” You can take that for what you will. This is my last comment. If you want to think you’ve won, go ahead. But you haven’t convinced me, and I hope you haven’t led others into an incorrect view of what science can and can not say or that there is a war between science and Catholic teaching.
Finally, a Happy Easter to you and yours.