Cosmological Considerations of Religion and Science - Agu, Anthony Maria & Rev. Fr. Prof.

Bonachristus Umeogu

COSMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF RELIGION AND SCIENCE

(A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS)

Agu, Anthony Maria

Department of Philosophy, Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka

&

Rev. Fr. Prof. Bonachristus Umeogu

Department of Philosophy,
Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka.
bonaumeogu@yahoo.com

Abstract
The intention of this article is to make a comparative analysis of how Religion and science
conceive the universe. Both religion and science have made a lot of speculations and
extrapolations concerning the nature, origin, evolution, structure, and eventual fate of the
universe. In their arguments, there are a number of convergent and divergent views on this
subject. Based on this, the research’s findings are that proponents of religion argue that the
universe came into existence out of nothing by a Supreme Being Who Himself is the uncaused
or self-existent Being. In contrast, some Scientists contend that no Supreme Being is
responsible for the coming into being of the universe. Their suggestion is that the world
emerged through the mechanism of the Big Bang or Steady State theory model of the universe.
The Greek theorize that matter is eternal and uncreated. If at all God created the universe, He
created it not out of nothing but through the pre-existing matter. What is common between the
two rivals is that both religious and some scientists believe that the universe has a finite
beginning. Both also conclude that the universe would one day come to an end through Big
Crunch for scientists but end time or eschatology for Christian religions. Interestingly, what
Cosmologists and Astronomers call Black Hole is what Christian religion call Bottomless pit.
The paper’s submission is that the universe is caused and governed by God and He is
responsible for the operations of all the natural laws. The paper employs analytic and
hermeneutic methods.

Keywords: Big Bang theory, Cosmology, Steady-state theory, Eschatology,

88
 Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024
ISSN: 2786-9792

Introduction
In their attempt to describe the universe, many scientists try to remove the need of a creator,
whereas many religious adherents insist that the beginning of the universe must be through
some Supreme Spirit and Intelligent. The article proposes to expose extensively the controversy
between religious and scientific arguments on the cause and origin of this observable universe.
The scope of the research would be only on cosmological considerations of religion and
science, the research would not delve into full or general arguments between religion and
science which is vast and has long history. Also the research would make an attempt to answer
the following questions: Is God the creator of the universe? Is the Big Bang the origin of the
universe? Is the world eternal without origin or beginning? Does the universe have a beginning
in time? If so, is it an argument for religion or science? Does the universe have any purpose?
Is the emergence of life anything more than a cosmic accident? Was there any intelligent
operative in the universe before the creation or appearance of humanity? Do our individual
lives have any ultimate relevance or significance in the unfathomable depths of cosmic time
and space among others? Some of these questions are raised by modern science and religion,
and these questions have inspired many responses. But many of these responses have been
reactionary repudiations of science itself. Still, many of them have been shallowly addressed
intellectually. And still, many of these questions have been intellectually inaccessible to sincere
and able inquirers.

The aim of this article is to address these questions. The article shall make an attempt to clear
the air that our universe is not without purpose. This work will also make a concise presentation
revealing and stating how some scientific approach to reality is not contradictory to a religious
interpretation of the reality. Instead, there is much more in scientific discoveries, predictions,
extrapolations, conclusions, and speculations that might be of great help to understand religion
in a new and adventurous way.

A Brief Reflection on the Relationship between Religion and Science

One powerful way to distinguish science and religion is the claim that science concerns itself
with the natural world, whereas religion concerns itself with the supernatural world and its
relationship to the natural. Besides, scientific explanations do not appeal to supernatural entities
such as gods or angels (fallen or not), or to non-natural forces (such as miracles, karma, or qi)
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Science espouses naturalism, that is the view that all
that exists are natural objects within the universe—the combination of the physical mass and
energy that make up planets and stars, oceans and mountains, microbes and humans. However,
naturalism usually implies the claim that real knowledge of these natural objects comes
through, or is at least controlled by, the result of scientific inquiry. In the same trend, cognate
terms are materialism and physicalism. The former has traditionally meant “all matter”; the
latter technically means reducible to laws, particles, and forms of energy that physicists study.
On the other hand, religion revolves round theism, that is the belief in the existence of God—

89
 Cosmological Considerations of Religion and Science - Agu, Anthony Maria & Rev. Fr. Prof. Bonachristus Umeogu

the ultimate reality that transcends the universe as a whole. Jews, Christians, Muslims, and
Hindus are theists. Theism generally or broadly includes pantheists, panentheists (the world is
in God), and Polytheists—hence most of the native African religions and the world’s
indigenous or tribal religions. For theists God is described as a personal Being, most often with
the attributes of Omniscience (all-knowing), Omnipotence (all-powerful), Omnibenevolence
(all-good). Theist sacred scriptures includes the Bible, the Qur’ran, the Upanishads, in it they
ascribe other qualities and attributes of God, such as Consciousness, Love, Justice, and
Righteousness. Theist in contrast to Scientist, believe that God created the world, providentially
guides it, and reveals itself in it. This simply means that God does things in the world (‘Divine
Action’), carrying out actions that are either consistent with natural law or that involves setting
natural regularities aside (miracles).

At first sight, Theism and Naturalism appear to be incompatible positions. Naturalists argue
that all that exists is the universe (or multiverse) and the objects within it, whereas theists posit
that something transcends the universe. Naturalists generally use science as their primary
standard for what humans know, whereas theists defend other ways of knowing as well, such
as intuition, or religious experience (Taylor & Francis).

In another development Stephen Jay Gould identifies science’s areas of expertise as empirical
questions about the constitution of the universe, and religion’s domain of expertise as ethical
values and spiritual meaning. He goes on to assert that religious leaders should refrain from
making factual claims like evolutionary theory, just as scientists should not claim insight on
moral matters. However, if religion were barred from making any statement of fact, it would
be difficult to justify its claims of value and ethics. For instance, one could not argue that one
should love one’s neighbor because it pleases the Creator. Moreover, religions do seem to make
empirical claims, for instance, that Jesus appeared after His death or that the Israelites passed
through the parted waters of the red sea (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Religious Cosmology
According to Wikipedia encyclopedia religious cosmology is the attempt to explain the origin,
evolution, and eventual fate of the universe from a religious perspective or point of view.
Religious cosmology may include beliefs in the origin of the universe in the form of a creation
myth, subsequent evolution, current organizational form and nature, and its eventual fate or
destiny. There are various religious mythologies stating and asserting why and how everything
is the way it is and the significance of it all. Again, religious cosmologies describe the spatial-
layout of the universe in terms of the world in which people typically dwell as well as other
dimensions, such as the seven dimensions of religion, these includes; ritual, experiential and
emotional, narrative and mythical, doctrinal, ethical, social and material. Religious
mythologies may include description of an act or process of creation by a creator deity or a
larger pantheon of deities, explanations of the transformation of chaos into order, or the
assertion that existence is a matter of endless cyclical transformations.

90
 Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024
ISSN: 2786-9792

However, religious cosmology is quite different from strictly scientific cosmology, informed
contemporary astronomy, physics, and similar fields, and may differ in conceptualizations of
the world’s physical structure and place in the universe, its creation, and forecasts or predictions
on its future.

The confine or scope of religious cosmology is more inclusive than a strict scientific cosmology
(physical cosmology and quantum cosmology) in the sense that it is not limited to experiential
observation, testing of hypotheses, and proposals of theories; for instance, religious cosmology
may explain why everything is the way it is or seems to be as it is and prescribing what humans
should do in this regard. There are various variations in religious cosmology which include
those such as from India, Buddhism, Hindu, and Jain; the religious belief in China, Chinese
Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism; Japan’s religious belief, Shintoisim. Abrahamic
religious beliefs are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Religious cosmologies have often
developed into the formal logics of metaphysical systems, such as Platonism, Neoplatonism,
Gnosticism, Taoism, Kabbalah, Wuxing, or the great chain of being (Wikipedia).

Big Bang Cosmology

According to Britannica encyclopedia Big Bang model of the universe is the scientific theory
of the evolution of the universe or the cosmological evolution of the universe. According to
this theory, the universe emerged as a result of explosion of a singularity that contains all the
substances of the universe; the universe expanded exponentially and rapidly from a highly
compressed primordial state, which resulted in significance decrease in density and
temperature. Soon afterwards, the dominance of matter over antimatter (as observed today)
may have been established by processes that also predict proton decay. During this stage many
types of elemental particles may have been present. Few seconds afterwards, the universe
cooled enough to allow the formation of certain nuclei. The prediction of the theory is that
definite amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium were produced. To this end, their
abundances agree with what is observed today. About one million years later the universe was
sufficiently cool for atoms to form. The radiation that also filled the universe was then free to
travel through space. This remnant of the early universe is the microwave background radiation
(three-degree background radiation) discovered in 1965 by Arno. A. Penzias and Robert W.
Wilson.

Interestingly, in addition to accounting for the presence of ordinary matter and radiation, the
Big Bang model predicts that the present universe should also be filled with neutrinos,
fundamental particles with no mass or electric charge. The possibility exists that other relics
from the early universe may eventually be discovered.

The model is based on two assumptions. The first is the Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
that describes correctly the gravitational interaction of all matter. The second assumption is
popularly known as the Cosmological Principle which states that an observer’s view of the
universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. But then, this
91
 Cosmological Considerations of Religion and Science - Agu, Anthony Maria & Rev. Fr. Prof. Bonachristus Umeogu

principle can only be applied to the large-scale properties of the universe, but it does imply that
the universe has no edge, so that the big bang origin occurred not at a particular point in space
but rather throughout space at the same time. However, these two assumptions make it possible
to calculate the history of the cosmos after a certain era or epoch called the Planck Time
(Singularity). But scientists are seriously busy making fervent and assiduous research in order
to determine what actually prevailed before the Planck Time. This type of universe was
proposed by Friedmann and Lemaitre in 1920s but the modern version was developed by
George Gamow and his colleagues in 1940s (The New Encyclopedia Britannica).

Some big bang proponents argue that the big bang is the origin of the world and that the world
arose according to the laws of physics, coming into being about 14 billion years ago.

Steady-state Theory cosmology

This model or scientific theory of the universe holds the view that universe is always expanding
but maintaining a constant average density, matter being continuously created to form new stars
and galaxies at the same rate that old ones become unobservable as a consequence of their
increasing distance and velocity recession. This model of the universe has no beginning or end
in time; and from any point within it the view on the grand scale that the average density and
arrangement of galaxies is just the same. To that end, galaxies of all possible ages are being
intermingled (The New Encyclopedia Britannica).

Furthermore, it is suggested and speculated that the Steady-state universe is spatially flat and
therefore infinite and it was eternal both in the past and in the future. There was no entropic
heat death in it. Moreover, since the mass density remained constant despite the universe being
in a state of expansion, then, matter had to be created continually throughout the universe.
In any case, the Steady-state model of the universe was widely considered to be highly
controversial in the sense that its element of spontaneous creation of matter seems to violate
the fundamental law of energy conservation. This element of steady state model is highly
dissatisfactory to many philosophers and even scientists, and it is also of relevance from a
religious perspective. From the latter perspective, the crucial question arises: does the steady-
state theory really make God unnecessary? Theologians assert that such infinitely old universe
is no way incompatible with Christian belief. The reason is that the continual matter creation
according to steady-state theory might be interpreted as support of the Christian notion of an
ever-active God Who is transcendent as well as immanent. Several later theologians concurred
with this point, namely that the old idea of creatio continua fits very well with the classical
steady-state theory of Hoyle and his allies. Also Bernard Lovell’s God is a constantly
intervening universal Being whose existence is in perfect and complete harmony with continual
creation of matter. Bernard Lovell is a radio astronomer who is a devoted Christian.

Finally, the rival cosmologies and their claimed religious associations becomes an issue in the
ideological battlefield of the Cold War. For instance, in Communist Russia finite-age

92
 Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024
ISSN: 2786-9792

cosmological models, and especially closed models of the Big-Bang type, were seen as political
suspect and contrary to the atheistic world view of Marxism-Leninism according to which the
universe is infinite in time, space, and content of matter. Lemaitre and Gamow defended this
theory but they were accused of being apologies for Divine creation, which made them
unwelcome and politically incorrect. In the same vein, the infinite and eternal steady-state
universe was also unwelcomed. The major reason that made the steady-state theory model of
the universe unpalatable to orthodox Marxists is its element of steady or continual matter
creation (Kragh, 2020).

Creationism
Creationism is the religious belief that everything in the universe originated with supernatural
acts of the Divine action. In other words, the universe, the Earth, life, and humans were all
brought into being by God. Some creationists reject scientific explanation of the origin of the
world such as evolutionary theory that describes the origin and development of natural
phenomena. Some creationists insist that the only true explanations and interpretations of the
origin of the world is the creation myth found in the Bible’s Genesis creation narrative.
However, some creationists such as Catholic Church and mainline Protestants attempt to
reconcile modern science with their faith in creation through forms of theistic evolution
according to which God purposefully created through the laws of nature. In the same vein,
some creationist groups call their belief evolutionary creationism. We have also Islamic and
Hindu faiths that are creationists.

Creationism: Divine action and creation

Ever since scientists developed their ideas and views on cosmology and the origins of the
world, Western cultures already had a doctrine of creation on the basis of Biblical texts which
could be seen in the first chapters of the Genesis and the Book of Revelation, including the
writings of the church fathers such as St. Augustine.

Consequently, this doctrine of creation has the following interrelated features, namely: first,
God created the world creation ex nihilo, i.e., creation out of nothing. Differently put or in other
words God did not need any pre-existing materials to make the world, unlike the Demiurge
(from Greek philosophy), who created the world from chaos, pre-existing matter. Second, God
is distinct from the world; the world is not equal to or part of God (contra pantheism or
panentheism) or a (necessary) emanation of God’s being (contra Neoplatonism). Rather God
created freely. The world is a contingent being which depends upon God’s creative act and is
also sustained by God. God also has no need of the world as He is self-existent and self-
sufficient God. Third, the doctrine of creation holds the view that creation is essentially good,
in Genesis chapter one the goodness of God’s creation is being repeatedly affirmed. Although,
the world does contain evil, God does not directly cause this evil to exist. Moreover, God does
93
 Cosmological Considerations of Religion and Science - Agu, Anthony Maria & Rev. Fr. Prof. Bonachristus Umeogu

not merely passively sustain His creation, but rather plays an active role in it, using special
divine actions such as miracles and revelations to care for His creatures. Fourth, God made
provisions for the end of the world, and will later on create a new Heaven and Earth, in this
way eradicating evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Religious and Scientific Conception of the World (A Comparative Analysis)

Religion argues that God created the universe as well as the laws governing it. But the concept
of cosmic creation as it appears in Big Bang cosmology denies the role of God as the cause of
the universe. In order to reconcile Christianity with Aristotle’s natural philosophy, the
theologians were faced with the thorny problem of the age of the world. This is simply because
the fundamental dogma of God’s creation of the world seemed irreconcilable with Aristotle’s
insistency that the world at large was uncreated as well as indestructible. Aquinas on his own
part suggests that the claim of a divinely created universe does not rule out the possibility of
an eternal universe where God is continuously creative (creatio continua).

Philosophical speaking, during the time of scientific revolution, it was taken for granted that
God had created the universe, but how He had done it and what He had created was a matter
of fierce dispute. According to Rene Descartes, a Catholic yet a Copernican, he tells us that
God had originally created the material world as a chaos of particle in motion, and at the same
time installed the mechanical laws that would turn the chaos into a cosmos. Alas, Descartes
boldly and somewhat heretically suggests that whatever the initial conditions the laws would
necessarily lead to the world we observe. Therefore, he argues, after the original creation there
was no need for God to intervene in the further construction of the world. The laws would take
care of it he says. A non-theistic version of Descartes’ deterministic claim has reappeared in
modern cosmology under the name “indifference principle”.

Sir Isaac Newton refuses to agree with Descartes’ indifference principle. Instead, with his new
mechanical theory and its fundamental law of gravity he proposes a cosmology consisting of
an immense number of stars held in mechanical equilibrium. Newton insists that it was
irrational to believe what Descartes says that only the laws of nature were responsible for how
the cosmos arose out of the primordial chaos. Newton goes on to argue that even an infinite
sidereal system would need a divine power to keep it gravitationally stable. But the difficulty
is that Newton was unable to provide a physical explanation of the stability of the universe,
instead he appealed to God’s continual intervention. In fact, this was the first appearance of the
so-called gravitation paradox that continues to haunt Newtonian Cosmology over the next two
hundred years. But a German Astronomer Hugo von Seeliger, proposes to solve the problem
by modifying Newton’s law of gravitation at very large distances. Alas, to Seeliger and his
contemporaries, God was no longer at disposal. Also in Kant’s treatise titled “Universal History
and Theory of the Heavens” God did not play any significant role in the grand cosmological
scenario. Even though Kant piously presented his theory as theistic, but in reality it was
naturalistic or deistic in nature. Kant in agreement with Descartes claims that the mechanical

94
 Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024
ISSN: 2786-9792

laws were sufficient to explain the evolution of the universe, which according to him included
not only phases of continual creation but also phases of degradation. Kant’s infinite universe
was evolving in endless cycles with enormously long periods separating constructive and
destructive phases. As for the size of the universe, Kant claims that only an infinite universe
would accord with God’s omnipotence. While in Kant’s philosophical theory of the universe
which is known as the ‘Divine Creation’ somehow maintains the place of God in he cosmic
scheme, in Pierre-Simon Laplace’s cosmology God had disappeared. Laplace’s nebular theory
is simply about the origin of the solar system, not about the universe as a whole. Laplace’s
theory and Kant’ s cosmology were merged in nineteenth century into the popular but also
theological controversial Kant-Laplace’s nebular hypothesis or world view.

Furthermore, William Thomson and Rudolf Clausius with the second law thermodynamics
argue that the degree of order and organization in any closed system would inevitably decrease
as the world irreversibly evolves towards a state of death. In Clausius’s formation based on the
concept of entropy, the world would tend towards a maximum state of entropy corresponding
to a ‘heat death’ from which it will never return. Thomson and Clausius reveal that the second
law of thermodynamics definitely contradicted the materialistic and atheistic idea of a recurrent
cyclical universe or world.

For over a half century or more than that the issue of heat death scenario was hotly debated
among philosophers, theologians, and social critics than astronomers and physicists. Some of
the scientific prophecies were welcomed by some Christian writers, whereas it was resisted by
writers of a materialist, positivist or atheist inclination. Moreover, the apparent agreement of
the second law with Christian dogmas was strengthened by the so-called “entropic creation
argument” implying a beginning of the world.
Some theologians argue that the universe cannot have existed in an eternity, if so they argue
the universe would be in a state of maximum entropy, which it is not. A critical look or reference
to the beginning of the universe, should amount to a conclusion that it must have been created
by a supernatural power or supreme being namely; God. This argument might be taken to
scientific proof of God’s existence which was initiated by German philosopher Franz Brentano,
and over ten decades it was much discussed by scientists as well as nonscientists. Nevertheless,
the heat death and the entropic creation argument hinged on the assumption that the second law
of thermodynamics might be applicable to the universe as a whole and not just to only isolated
parts of the cosmos. Critics in the camp of materialist completely rejected the second law of
thermodynamics as a general law of nature.

In another development, cosmology’s old and central questions, namely whether the universe
is finite or infinite has been an age long controversial argument. Materialists and atheists insist
that the universe is infinite and that it was far from obvious that the second law applied to the
universe as a whole. In the same vein most atheists were equally convinced that the universe is
finite in the sense that it contains only a finite number of celestial bodies. In any case, there
was no one-to-one correspondence, and Christian scientists Thomson among them support the
fact that the universe is a finite, divinely created cosmos.
95
 Cosmological Considerations of Religion and Science - Agu, Anthony Maria & Rev. Fr. Prof. Bonachristus Umeogu

Interestingly, with the discovery of radioactivity in 1896 a few scientists realized that the new
phenomenon might be used as a cosmic clock, an alternative to the problematic entropy. Arthur
E. Haas the Austrian physicist might be the first to suggest that the existence of radioactivity
elements such as uranium indicates that the universe has a finite age. After all, how could there
still be radioactive elements if the universe had existed for all eternity. Arthur Haas was a
catholic and hostile to materialism, he teaches that the argument from radioactivity would play
an important role in Georges Lemaitre’s formation of the first big- bang model theory of the
universe (Hans & Kragh).

Albert Einstein, Scientists, and the Religious on a Closed Universe

German astrophysicist Karl Friedrich Zollner suggests that the cosmic space might be slightly
positively curved and as a result closed. Although with no boundary, the universe would be
finite both with respect to space and the number of stars in it. But then, it was only with
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity that introduced the concept of curved space which in
turn attracted the interest of physics and astronomy. According to Einstein’s field equation the
model of the universe was static, homogenously filled with matter, and spatially closed. Alas,
Einstein erroneously thought that this was the only model allowed by the General Theory of
Relativity. But then, Einstein’s closed universe attracted much interest, not only scientifically
but also because of what was thought to be its philosophical and religious implications. But
neither Einstein nor other contributors to the new cosmological theory associated it with a
religious world view. Nevertheless, the theory entered into serious discussion in the interwar
period concerning materialism, idealism, and religion. Kristian Schelderup the Norwegian
theologian examined in details the relationship between Einstein’s theory and the Christian
dogmas, suggesting that the closed and static universe made it necessary to revise the
fundamental dogma of a divinely created world. In the same vein, other contributors argue that
the finite universe contradicted materialism whereas it was consonant with idealistic and
Christian thought. Besides, Arthur Eddington (a Quaker) supported the Einstein universe for
scientific reasons but also because of its finitude and static nature agreed with his religious
sentiments. For Eddington God had not created the universe a finite time ago. His view was in
broad agreement with the one of Ernest William Barnes, a mathematician and theologian who
in 1924 was appointed Bishop of Birmingham. Barnes in his book entitled “Scientific Theory
and Religion” he analyzed relativistic cosmology and its theological implications. Barnes was
generally happy with Einstein’s closed model of the universe, not only because it was spatially
finite but also because it made it difficult to see God as a transcendent Maker of the universe.
Barnes also addressed the old question of pluralism, reasoning that the existence of multiple
habited worlds was not a problem for Christian faith.

Concerning Einstein’s field equation, the American physicist Robert Millikan, a Nobel laureate
in 1923, defended the idea of an eternal and regenerating classical universe. He discovers an
irreversible universe governed by the entropy law to be unacceptable and unchristian, and
instead he postulated an ever-evolving universe with continual creation of matter. But as a
96
 Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024
ISSN: 2786-9792

Christian he believes that the world was created by God, but that creation took place continually
rather than being limited to the beginning. William Ralph Inge in his book titled “God and the
Astronomers” supported Millikan’s idea of an eternal balance between creative and destructive
processes in the universe. But then, his preference for a kind of cyclic universe was unusual for
a Christian thinker (Hans & Kragh).

Scientifically, it was realized that Einstein’s field equations describe dynamical cosmological
model and also models with a zero or negative space curvature (flat or hyperbolic geometries).
Lemaitre’s expanding universe evolved asymptotically from a closed Einstein’s universe and
so did not have a definite origin in time. Eddington adopted and further developed it and
considered it to be a conceptual advantage that the “Eddington-Lemaitre model” did not include
a sudden origin of the universe. Lemaitre also proposes what Eddington found repugnant,
namely a universe with a beginning in an explosive event million years ago, the first example
of a Big-Bang theory model of the universe. Lemaitre the Belgian cosmologist pictures the
origin of the universe as a violent radioactive explosion of a ‘primeval atom’ containing all
matter squeezed together in a huge atomic nucleus. Obviously and significantly, Lemaitre’s
primeval atom was quite different from nothingness; the original explosion or firework marked
the beginning of the universe, not its creation.

However, it may be tempting to suspect that the explosive universe was motivated by
Lemaitre’s desire to reconcile Cosmology and Genesis given that he was a Catholic priest, and
the creation of the universe is a dogma in Christian thought. This was what his critics claimed.
Lemaitre just like Eddington was careful to distinguish between science and religion. He
severally made it clear that the concept of cosmic creation belongs to theology and
metaphysics, and not to the domain of science. Lemaitre in 1958 Solvay conference says that
the primeval atomic theory was perfectly neutral with respect to religion. That it was not
inconsistent with theism, but nor was it inconsistent with atheism.

Besides, while Lemaitre’s big-bang theory was positively received in the popular press,
astronomers and physicists ignored the theory or even rejected it as a wishful speculation. An
American philosopher of religion John E. Boodin complained that Lemaitre’s theory
presupposed a material proto-universe and for this reason failed to explain the creation of the
universe in scientific terms. But then, Boodin did not realize that this was not what Lemaitre
had in mind, and his theory was not about creation but about beginning and evolution. Edmund
T. Whittaker, the British Mathematician and a convert to Catholicism accepted the entropic
creation argument and claimed that modern cosmology provided further support for Christian
faith. In his book entitled ‘Matter and Spirit’ Whittaker argues that the finite age of the universe
was strong evidence for a universe created by an omnipotent God. In agreement with Lemaitre
he cautiously says that creation itself was outside the scope and grasp of science.

After World War II it was often claimed that Lemaitre’s primeval atom theory or the big-bang
theory was an attempt to reconcile scientific cosmology with the Christian creation dogma. In
1951 in a controversial address to the Pontifical Academy, pope Pius XII states that modern
physics and astronomy provided incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a transcendent
97
 Cosmological Considerations of Religion and Science - Agu, Anthony Maria & Rev. Fr. Prof. Bonachristus Umeogu

creator. The pope asserts that there was no essential difference between the Genesis creation
story and modern cosmology, because the modern cosmology just only confirmed what
Christians had known for ages. It appears that the pope takes the big-bang cosmology as a
scientific proof of God. The pope had Lemaitre’s cosmology in mind by having said this
although he did not mention his name. But Lemaitre did not share the pope’s apologetic
interpretation of the physical cosmology, which he thought was fundamentally mistaken. At
the time of the pope’s address, Lemaitre’s fireworks theory had been substantially transformed
into a much improved version primarily by the Russian-American nuclear physicist George
Gamow.

In 1930 Edward Arthur Milne a British astrophysicist and cosmologist, a professor of

mathematics at the University of Oxford proposed a kind of big-bang theory completely
different from that of Lemaitre’s. Professor Milne without taking into consideration General
Theory of Relativity or curved space develops a world system according to which the universe
was expanding, infinite in extent, and had originated in a space-point rather than in an extended
object. Professor Milne was convinced that the universe was created by a transcendent and
omnipotent God, who therefore had to be part of scientific cosmology. Milne argues that
although God is omnipotent, God is also a rational being who could not have created impossible
or irrational things. For instance, God could not have created a law of gravitation different from
the Newton’s law of gravitation. Also God could not have created a finite universe originating
in a condensed material body as Lemaitre would have us to believe in his theory. Professor
Milne passionately believes that only his theory or world system was consistent with God’s
will and power. Milne develops his cosmological considerations or ideas most fully in the
posthumously published ‘Modern Cosmology and the Christian idea of God’ an idiosyncratic
work which was not appreciated by both theologians and scientists. Just like Barnes in 1933,
Professor Milne offers his view of pluralism and how the souls of extraterrestrials might be
saved. He suggests that the problem of interplanetary redemption might be fixed by means of
radio astronomy (Hans & Kragh).

The Big Bang Controversy between Religion and Science

Religion argues that God said let there be big bang and it banged. But Science says that the big
bang has nothing to do with God, instead, the big bang banged as a result of natural laws. But
what is common with Science and Religion is that both concurred that the world has a finite
age and that the big bang is the origin and the development of the universe. For instance, the
very first verse of the Genesis of the Christian Bible implies that the universe itself has a
beginning and it says “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” The
implication of this Biblical assertion is that all matter that can be seen, observed, or even
inferred to exist in this universe were brought into existence at one moment by a Creator Who
exists outside the limits and laws of the universe itself. Interestingly and accordingly, the Big
Bang theory of cosmology also points to a beginning to all of space-time and matter, as well as

98
 Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024
ISSN: 2786-9792

the scientific laws governing them. Both the Christian Bible and science reveal to us that there
must be a cause that lies outside of the universe itself.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not tell us that God instantly formed our universe
and the Earth exactly as we see it today. The process of the creation lasted for a whole of six
days. The process takes place in which the chaos is transformed into a well-ordered habitation
fit for life and consciousness.

Consequently, the Big Bang theory of cosmology has a lot of packages to say about the process
of the beginning of the universe. For example, the Big Bang reveals to us that a planet suitable
for life such as the Earth does not become possible in the universe quite until a few precise
developments that take place. These include the universal expansion of the universe and the
receding of the galaxies, the cosmic ripples which eventually results into galaxy and star
formations, the production of heavy elements in the large stars, the supernovae spreading them
throughout the galaxy, the formation of solar systems, the formation of proton, neutron,
electron, atoms, molecules, the nucleosynthesis among many other contributing factors. The
truth of the matter is that the universe went through quite a lengthy period of preparation before
the formation of the planet Earth. It is crystal clear that in many ways the early universe can be
seen as a formless and void of the ordered conditions necessary to support life, in total and
complete agreement with the Genesis creation stories of the Christian Bible.

Moreover, this does not necessarily imply that the universe became more ordered in time,
which would be a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the planet
Earth went through a miraculous sequence of events, preparing it for life. The Big Bang on its
part does not give specific predictions about what takes place on planet Earth, but it is important
for us to realize the amazing and perhaps unique sequence of events on Earth, revealed to us
by modern science. For example, the Earth received just the right amount of radiation from its
star, namely; our Sun, to warm temperatures to the range of liquid water. It then joined with the
Moon of sufficient size to stabilize the spin-axis of the Earth against chaotic motion. It also
develops a thin, transparent atmosphere, which nonetheless serves as a shield against harmful
ultraviolet radiation and provides sufficient greenhouse warming. Also the oxygen level of the
atmosphere was boosted to a level capable of supporting land life following a vast period
dominated by photosynthesis marine algae.

What is more, these and many other specific characteristics of the planet Earth appears to be
fine-tuned to make our existence possible. Without doubt it appears that modern science is
confirming the creation account of the Christian Bible, a careful process of preparation
resulting into a created order described several and oftentimes by God Himself with the words
“and behold it was good” (Steve, 2003).

99
 Cosmological Considerations of Religion and Science - Agu, Anthony Maria & Rev. Fr. Prof. Bonachristus Umeogu

Science and Religion on the Infinity of the Universe

Scientifically and theologically it is believed that the universe has a finite age, but it might
also be spatially and materially infinite. But then, if the space is infinite and the cosmological
principle is assumed to be correct or valid, then, the universe would most likely contain an
infinite number of galaxies, stars, atoms, and everything else. Nevertheless, such infinities of
the universe would not only cause philosophical and logical problems, it would also cause
theological problems without equivocation.

However, at the time of the scientific revolution it was commonly assumed that the physical
space cannot be truly infinite, but only indefinitely large. Infinity was seen as one of the divine
attributes which should not be attributed to anything at all, to claim that creature or nature is
infinite amounts to endow it with divinity, which is a heretical view characteristic of pantheism.
The theists insist that the notion that the universe is infinite is purely philosophical absurd and
theological heretical, but there was no consensus on the issue. But then, several Christian
scientists, starting from Descartes in the seventeenth century to Edward Milne in the twentieth,
have argued that an infinite universe is in better agreement with God’s will and omnipotent
finite universe. The connection and relationship between finitism and theism, infinitism and
atheism, should be seen as historical contingent rather than justified by either scientific or
theological arguments or reasons.

Furthermore, during the early period of modern cosmology, relativistic models with zero or
negative curvature were sometimes associated with materialism and atheism on the grounds
that they entail or imply a universe of infinite size. In contrast or conversely, Einstein’s close
and finite universe was highly welcomed and approved by theists. In the mind of the
mathematically trained bishop of Birmingham, Bishop Ernest W. Barnes, infinite space was “a
scandal to human thought”. Philosophically, his argument was epistemic as well as theological.
One of his arguments is that, only if God’s universe is finite can we hope to understand the full
range of His activity. Georges Lemaitre the Catholic priest and pioneer cosmologist his
contemporary, reasons likewise that the universe had to be finite in order to be comprehensible.
In agreement with his later warning against the “nightmare of infinite space” both of his two
innovative of cosmological models, the expanding model of 1927, and the Big Bang model of
1931, were spatially closed. The rejection of the Steady-state model of the 1950s among
Christians was because of its lack of cosmic creation, but also it implies a homogenous universe
of infinite extent. According to a Benedictine priest and historian of science Stanley Jaki, the
infinite universe is a scientific cover-up for atheism.

Currently, the consensus of a geometrically flat accelerating universe is usually taken to imply
an infinite cosmos. Cosmologists have ignored the troublesome philosophical problems and
speak of the infinite universe as just an indefinitely large one. They avoid or rarely reflect on
the weird epistemic consequences of an actual infinity and even more rarely on the theological
consequences. George Ellis the African cosmologist and his colleagues reject this rule and have
forcefully argued against an infinite universe, suggesting that the flat space of the consensus
model is probably an abstraction that does not hold physically. If the universe is really infinite
100
 Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024
ISSN: 2786-9792

and uniform, he argues, then it can be (and has been) further argued that there would be an
infinity of identical copies of all human beings and indeed of everything. Such a situation or
consequence as articulated by George Ellis, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, and many others,
obviously is theological disturbing. Ellis argues that it is even more disturbing because is it that
God may then not be able to keep track of and give attention to the infinite number of beings
in the universe. Besides, if there is a multitude of cosmic regions, each of which is inhabited
with intelligent beings, one may need to contemplate a multitude of Christ-figures, incarnations
and crucifixions. Clearly, George Ellis refuses not only to consider such a scenario, he also
reasons that it strengthened the case for a finite universe. Ellis says thus: “Surely an infinite
number of Christ-figures must be too much, no matter how one envisages God” Hans & Kragh
(as cited in Ellis, 1993:394).

Science and Religion on the End of the World (Physical Eschatology)

According Kraph, Modern cosmology is not only about the past of the universe, but it also
offers scenarios about its far future, including speculations about the fate of intelligent life. In
the same vein, the Bible’s revelation passages speak about the end of the world and a possible
new creation. Besides, the cosmic future may seem to offer another point of contact between
cosmology and theistic religion.

However, scientifically based speculations about the state of the cosmos in the far future and
the possibility of endless life were first discussed in the late nineteenth century in connection
with the controversy over the heat death predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. In
the explanation of the eschatology aspects of cosmology, a certain German scientist argues that
life might persist even in the very high-entropic environment of the far future. Accordingly,
while the heat death scenario was welcome by Christian authors, it was vehemently opposed
by materialists and atheists who argue that for an eternal universe with eternal life.

Furthermore, since 1970s physical cosmology has emerged as a new subfield of astrophysics
and cosmology, pioneered by Freeman Dyson, Jamal Islam and many others. The field concerns
itself with the state of the universe in the remote future on the basis of extrapolations of
cosmological models and the assumption that the presently known laws of physics will remain
indefinitely valid. The favored scenario is the open ever-expanding universe where
extrapolations typically result in an ultimate future (at about 10100 years from now) in which
the universe consists of nothing but exceedingly thin electron-positron plasma immersed in a
cold radiation of neutrinos and photons. In the same vein, other studies presume a closed
universe collapsing in a Big Crunch and others investigate the nearer future of the humankind
about a few million years from now. The fact of the matter is that whereas many of these studies
are not concerned with the final state of life, some are, and it is this later group that constitutes
physical eschatology proper.

Alas, physical eschatologists usually ignore the religious associations of their studies or deny
that they exist. But Tipler is a controversial exception in the sense that not only does he argue
101
 Cosmological Considerations of Religion and Science - Agu, Anthony Maria & Rev. Fr. Prof. Bonachristus Umeogu

that some kind of life can continue forever in a closed universe, he also claims that it is the
very collapse of the universe that permits eternal life. When the final eternity he argues has
been reached at what he calls the “omega point,” life becomes omniscient and the temporal
becomes atemporal. According to him, the final singularity is God and “theology is nothing but
physical cosmology based on the assumption that life as a whole is immortal. Undoubtedly, his
arguments are extreme one to the extent that it has caused much discussion among theologians.

Interestingly, the term physical eschatology indicates a connection to Biblical eschatology, but
it is far from clear that the two are related in any meaningful sense. But then, the Bible message
is not so much about the end of the physical universe as it is also about the imminent return of
Christ, the transformation of humans from flesh to spirit, and the final kingdom of God. The
Bible is also about the ultimate destiny and goal of humans, not of self-robots. Tippler also
argues that the scenario of a closed universe may appear to be more compatible with the
Biblical view than the case of the ever-expanding universe, but even in the former case it is
hard to establish a meaningful connection. Again, while the end of the world does not conflict
with the Bible, the claims of immortality of intelligent life forms (not necessarily humans) do
conflict. For instance, the Bible asserts that God alone is immortal and that all His created
beings are doomed to extinction unless God decides to keep them to eternity.

In another development, many theologians have expressed passionate concern concerning the
cosmologists’ scenarios of the end of the world and stressed that there is a universe of difference
between these scenarios and proper eschatology. Wolhart Pannenberg argues that Christian
affirmation of an imminent end of the world is scarcely reconcilable with the cosmological
extrapolations of the state of the universe zillions of years in the distant future ahead. Karl
Peters in his own version of the story according to Schwarz, 2000, p. 180 cited by Hans and
Kragh argues thus:

If the expanding universe is indeed open, expanding forever, then how can one speak of God
recreating the universe? If the universe is closed, then it is likely to end in a ‘Big Crunch’ of
mammoth black-hole proportions. Again, it is difficult to see how a new creation can take place
(Hans & Kragh)
Arguably, whereas Pannenberg, Peters, Arthur Peacocke and many others tend to reason that
physical and Christian eschatology are either contradictory or incommensurable. Craig on his
part takes a more reconcilable view in which he says that the cosmologists’ versions of secular
eschatology furnish ground for taking seriously the hypothesis of a transcendent creative and
omnipotent agent. But it appears that this agent in question might not be the classical God, but
more likely to be God in panentheistic version or mind-set (Hans & Kragh).

102
 Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 1, January 2024
ISSN: 2786-9792

Summary
Science and Religion concurred that the universe has a finite age. Some Scientists arguing that
the universe started through the Big Bang but God is not the cause of the Big Bang. In contrast,
Religion concluded that God created the universe out of nothing through the mechanism of the
Big Bang. The Steady-state theory proponents argued that the universe is eternal. Religion
applies the Steady-state theory and argues that the steady-state theory of the cosmos is the
powerful manifestation of perpetual Divine Creation.

Conclusion
To solve the mysteries of the universe is not an easy task. The mystery behind the universe is
one of the most coveted knowledge of mankind down through the ancient epoch. To solve the
problem of the origin of the universe, almost every culture has its own theory of creation. The
origin of the universe remains a concept of great controversial issues between science and
religion and so does the eschatological question of the end of everything, and the meaning of
the apparent fine-tuning of the universe.

However, cosmological considerations of science and religion are compatible but where it
appears that they are different is in their interpretations and explanations. For instance, science
explains things in terms of natural causes that before were supposedly explain by divine
intervention. Religion insists that God made or created the natural causes which science studies.
Science is just discovering what God has already created and set in motion to be controlled by
natural laws. The main concern or business of religion is about relationship with God and the
meaning of life whereas the goal of science is about specific explanation of the natural world
scientifically.
Unfortunately, science could not answer the question “What came before the Big Bang and
what triggered the Big Bang? Also science does not provide sufficient and adequate explanation
about the origin and consequence fate of the universe. But the Bible does explain at length how
God created the world and its eventual end time.

The paper’s submission is that creation should be ascribed to an Intelligent and Primordial
Being Who Himself is outside space and time. His spirit controls all the forces and natural laws
of the universe both visible and invisible or observable and unobservable universes.

103
 Cosmological Considerations of Religion and Science - Agu, Anthony Maria & Rev. Fr. Prof. Bonachristus Umeogu

References
Hans, H. & Helge, K. Theism and physical Cosmology. Retrieved on April 13, 2023 from
phil.archive.pitt.edu>cosmology-word2pdf

Helge, K. (2020). Cosmology and religion. Encyclopedia of the History of Science. Retrieved
on May 21, 2023 from doi: 10.34758/Kyqj-Kv70
“ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu>article>gallery>view"
John, W. D. (1875). History of the conflict between religion and science. Appleton.

Milton, L. B. Jr. (1982: 9-13). Big Bang: The Reconciliation of Science and Religion. Retrieved
on September 13, 2023 from http://vc.bridgew.edu/br_rev/vol1/iss2/5
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2022). Religion and Science. Retrieved on May 21, 2023
from plato.stanford.edu>entries>religion-science
Steve, B. (2003). A Christian Physicist Examines the Big Bang Theory. Retrieved on May 21,
2023 from www.letu.edu>academics>arts-and-science>files>big-bang

Taylor & Francis Group. Religion and Science. Retrieved on April 13, 2023 from
https://www.routlege.com/rsc/download/Religion_and_Science_freebook.pdf
The New Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 2: 205). Big Bang Theory
The New Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 11: 228). Steady State Theory

Wikipedia (2023). Creationism. Retrieved on September 21, 2023 from

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/creationism

Wikipedia (2017). Religious Cosmology. Retrieved on September 13, 2023 from

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/religiuos cosmology

104