of truth dimensions of reality that are being investigated are somewhat different, but they have that in common. That is all that I mean by the search for truth.
Eric, Metaxas: Can everyone in this area hear?
Polkinghorne: I am sorry. What should I do?
Eric, Metaxas: You should berate one of the sound people.
Polkinghorne: That is cathartic but not very useful. I will try to stand closer to this [microphone]. I am sorry; forgive me. Look, nothing is more irritating on an occasion like this than for somebody to come up to you afterward and say, “I couldn’t hear a word.” If you can’t hear what I’m saying, just wave, and I will do what I can.
Q: I believe you just missed the idea of many different universes operating with separate laws of engagement, instead of thinking of a universe that is finely tuned. I have read several studies, New York Times articles, and friends have told me about the possibility of alternative dimensions, more intriguing dimensions— four, five, six, seven. So, I am wondering how that idea, that reality, would coincide with what you were saying about the existence of many universes or one.
A: Many theories in modern physics have become very speculative. Take string theory. There was a program I saw on television about that the other night; it was a very interesting exploration of possible ideas, trying to guess what the world is like at sixteen orders of magnitude. That means sixteen powers of ten based on what we know from direct empirical or observational encounter. The lessons of history are against even the cleverest people being able to do that. So, I would be cautious about that.
Even if you did that, string theory is based upon a certain way of putting these things together. The existence of quantum mechanics, the existence of general relativity, of gravitational theory— where do they come from? They are indispensable items in a fruitful world. You need gravity to make stars and everything to produce structures. You need quantum mechanics because it is both orderly and open. It fixes some things; it doesn’t fix everything, and you need a certain flexibility for the development of complex systems.
The universe would still have very remarkable properties to it, which would still demand some sort of explanation and would not be explained just by saying, “It is just our luck.” So, I think there is something left to think about. I could have done a more nuanced discussion about that, but I didn’t have time.
Q: In your presentation of the anthropic principle and theistic evolution, you presented us with a God who was clever enough to allow us to be involved in the creation. With the current state of genetic research and potential manipulation, what are the limits, if any, of our involvement in that creation?
A: That is a very important question and obviously a pressing question. I just finished all of this now, but for about ten years I was involved with various United Kingdom government advisory committees connected with genetic advances. What happens is that science gives you knowledge, and I think that knowledge is always a good thing. It is a better basis for decision than ignorance, but technology takes knowledge and turns it into power, and not everything that you can do, you should do. So, you need to add to knowledge and power; you need to add wisdom, which is the ability to choose the good and refuse the bad. There are obviously quite difficult things to decide there.
First of all, things have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There is no simple rule that says, “If you take five boxes out of seven, it is okay.” You have to look at these things case by case, and you can’t leave the judgments simply to the experts, because research is very exciting and you can get carried away by the technological imperative: “We have done this, we have done that; come on, let’s do the next thing.” The next thing may be the thing that you shouldn’t do. So, you can’t leave it to the experts. That is why society has a role to play.
Of course, you cannot do without the experts, because the experts might tell you what might be on the agenda. So, we need a debate, and it much grieves me that in my own country— and I rather suspect in this country too— so much of moral debate is the clash of single-issue pressure groups, one side shouting, “X is wonderful,” and the other side shouting, “X is terrible”— whatever X is. It is very unlikely to be either of those things. X could be good for some purposes and bad for others. We need a more careful, temperate, and nuanced ethical discussion.
Q: My question is aimed more at the artistic side of the search. I now am a playwright and a designer, and one of the things that I come across more than anything is the search for truth, both in my clients and in myself. I am a Christian, and I feel very strongly. In one of your books, you had said that art is between, I think, theology and physics or theology and science. You also had said in that book something about how Earth is the theater where all this plays out. So, could you possibly elaborate on that a little bit?
A: It is a big subject, and I did refer to it very briefly. At the end, I was talking about God being worthy of worship and the role of value. One of the things I am always trying to encourage in myself and others is to take a rich and generous view of the world we live in, the multilevel reality within which we live; for example, to believe— as I do, indeed, believe— that the personal is as important, indeed more important, than the impersonal; that the unique and unrepeatable is as significant as the repeatable. Science is concerned largely with the impersonal and the repeatable.
In my talking to my friends, it’s hard to get from science to God in one step; that is far too big a leap. So, I ask them what they think about music— and I broached that subject very briefly this evening. I ask them what they think about music, and it encourages them, I think, to take seriously a more generalist metaphysic. That is a very important thing.
If you think science told you everything that is worth knowing, it would be a very cold, impersonal world that we so described. We wouldn’t find ourselves in that world. So, I think the arts are very, very significant in that respect, if we reflect on human nature. For example, what is it to be a human being? One of the prime windows into human nature is through literature. Great literature is always concerned with the individual and the personal. The subject of great literature is not every man or every woman, but Hamlet or King Lear or whatever it is. We have to take those things seriously.
Q: I first have a comment. I observe that the unfortunate relationship between religion and science is that religion is often a science-stopper. That is, for example, in the creationist-versus-evolution debate, there were problems in science about what the creationists called irreducible complexity. The answer to this problem was God— the God of the gaps. I think there are biochemical processes we understand where a lot of these problems of irreducible complexity have been addressed.
I have two questions. Basically, I think, you have presented two arguments for, at least, an Intelligent Designer. One is the conformity between the reason within and the reason without, and you say that this is a metaphysical question beyond the realm of science. I am wondering if we can pose this as actually a scientific question. How is it that human beings are able to reason about deep, abstract mathematical truths?
I would guess that one answer is that the very same cognitive processes of generalization and inductive reasoning which allow a person to look at one cliff that has one shape and another cliff that has one shape and generalize that when you go over both of them, you die— these are the very same cognitive processes that allow us to think deeply and abstractly about mathematical problems.
The second question is with the anthropic argument. I am wondering if you would agree that there are two premises behind the anthropic argument that are unproven, one that it is possible for the universe to have other cosmological constants
