Francis Gregory L.

Ku
STS 10-N
Science and Spirituality

“We should never have happened - and yet here we are!” In this vast, dark, and cold space,
the tiny blue oasis that we call “Earth” has managed to align a series of conditions- that coalesced in such
a precise and unique manner – permit the sustenance of life. An accomplishment so unique and so
unimaginably precise that there is no other planet in existence known with the same conditions (National
Geographic society, n.d.). As a true outlier, this has led many to ponder the probability and feasibility of
these factors, and attempt to find meaning in their possible correlations.

In pursuit of understanding the probability of earth achieving life , factors contributing to its
dawn and development such as the odds of earth containing a stable atmosphere with the appropriate
balance between hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon necessary (National Geographic, n.d.); the
probability of the presence of water and the planetary’s positioning in the “Goldilocks Zone” allowing
just the right distance from the sun in order to maintain water at its liquid state ;the hosting of a
dynamic core, ,the chances of our planet having a big enough moon to provide an appropriate stabilizing
pull (Canales et al., n.d); and the presence of a complex biodiversity allowing life to thrive - are only a few
of many factors that have to be considered. Even the creation of the very universe itself has precise
factors that if changed even just a little differently, would have influenced and prevented the existence of
life. If the universe had formed even just a little differently, if expansion had proceeded a little slower or
faster, or if gravity were even fractionally a little weaker nothing would have coalesced - leaving our
universe as a ‘dull, scattered void” ( Bryson, 2003, p.15) With this being the case, many have started to
ponder whether a conclusion can be achieved by observing the universe, the planet, and the odds of these
factors Is this unequivocal proof that it was highly unlikely that Earth would have been able to sustain
life or is this unequivocal evidence that life on Earth was “rigged” from the very start? As a topic
tackled by the best and brightest minds of multiple specialized fields such as cosmologists, astrophysics,
statisticians, and multiple other experts and we really come to a conclusion?

Regardless of the field of expertise, the prestige of the researcher, era of the research, or even
the approach used - contention regarding the probability of life on Earth still heavily exists. This can be
seen even among renowned Nobel laureates such as Jacques Monod, and Christian de Duve, and among
scientists with the same practice such as Stuart Kauffman and St. Augustine ( Rojas, 2018) . This means
that even with the massive amounts of research, time, expertise, and attention given to this problem - the
only conclusion we can be ascertain of is the lack of one. This ambiguity and lack of definite answers has
led many to believe that science is not the appropriate path to understand “the origins of life”. It instead,
has led many to believe that the right course of action is to separate themselves from the ambiguity of
science and embrace the “certainty” that religion provides regardless of the certainty’s veracity. A
certainty and absolute belief so strong that history has proven that it not only stood unwavering in front
of scientific opposition, but also forcefully silenced and shaped the opposition.

It did so, mainly because -unlike science- these premodern traditions and beliefs provided by
religion did not have a “willingness to admit ignorance about our universe”. Ancient traditions of
knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Confucianism, Buddhism, and the vast majority admitted to only
two kinds of ignorance. First, that an individual might be ignorant of something important in which he
only had to ask somebody wiser or look for “wiser” scriptures. Second, that an individual or an entire
tradition may be ignorant of “unimportant things” meaning that that whatever the wise people or the
great gods of the past did not bother to tell them was unimportant ( Harari, 2018, p.251)
 This totalitarian control and influence religion held over science, and the public’s views however,
changed and diminished over time. As science had improved leaps and bounds, man gained new
methods of understanding the universe and started to develop scientific models to explain the cosmos.
This first “paradigm shift” in our understanding of the cosmos can be exemplified in the Ptolemaic
(geocentric) view of the universe. This view assumed that earth was stationary and at center of the
universe (Guerrero, 2018) . Although being imperfect, facing opposition from data and scientific
observations, and having the flaw of not being able to predict planetary motions- it was able to cement
itself as the dominant belief for endorsement by the Church. This prevented, scientific opposition,
alternate theories, and criticism which stunted attempts to improve cosmology. It was not until Nicolaus
Copernicus anonymously published his ‘Heliocentric Model” which claimed that the Sun was the center
of the universe, that the second paradigm shift, the Heliocentric Universe, started to dawn. This,
however, lacked data to predict planetary motions and was still purely theoretical. It was only until it was
refined by Johannes Kepler’s ellipse revision and solidified by Isaac Newton’s discovery of gravity that
the model was perfected. This however, did not exempt Isaac’s theory, which was rooted in a claim that
planets were attracted to each other and did not collapse because of an infinite amount of stars stabilizing
each other, to receive opposition and criticism. . One notable one, being Olber’s paradox. This argued
that if the universe was truly populated with infinite luminous stars, the night sky should have been
bright everywhere(Britannica, 2018). This led to the consideration that the night sky was still dark due to
the massive distance between stars.

This theory alluded to the idea that the universe was a lot larger and helped served as a
foundation for the “Third Paradigm of Cosmology. Here, Einstein’s framework for physics argued that
gravity was a curvature of spacetime instead of a force(Guerrero, 2018)This cosmological model’s use of
curvature of spacetime was then applied in relation with the theory of the distance of stars proposed
earlier. Ironically, despite Einstein’s model concluding that the universe was static, this allowed scientists
to ponder whether the universe was expanding .Supporting Evidence then emerged overtime as
improvements in telescope technology allowed scientists to measure the distance between stars; Hubble’s
discovery of the distance of the Andromeda Galaxy debunking our belief that the universe was confined
by our galaxy; and the analysis of “ red shifts” which ,thanks to its ability to showcase that light from
galaxies is shifted to longer wavelengths, affirmed that galaxies are moving away from us and
“expanding” (Guerrero, 2018) (European Space Agency, n.d).

After observing all of these factors, shifts, and moments in history- I realized a lot of things
about how one should view their own beliefs in regards to the universe. First, that one should realize that
whether your beliefs are rooted in widely accepted religion, or strongly supported by science- these , as
evidenced by the paradigm shifts, may still change or risk being invalid. Second, that there is nothing
wrong with your beliefs being invalid or facing opposition. In fact these examples have evidenced that
opposition and admittance to ignorance can result to stronger and more grounded beliefs. Lastly, that no
matter what belief one sides with, one should always be open to change and the viewpoints of others.
One should not adopt a dogmatic view in regard to religious beliefs. If Nicolas Copernicus never
published the Heliocentric model for the sake of maintaining the false sense of truth perpetuated by the
Roman catholic church, we would arguably still believe we are the center of the universe. Likewise, one
should never adopt a dogmatic view that “only scientific methods in understanding our universe is valid’.
Being able quantify the immensity of the universe should not be synonymous with taking away the
spirituality of it. Instead of choosing to understand the cosmos solely through science or through
religion, we should instead adopt a synergized approach compromised of the scientific rigors of theory
building and careful testing with the wisdom, intuitiveness, and different viewpoint spirituality provides.
As both seek to understand the universe and find meaning, both can be utilized to supplement each
other. This is not only because Science is compatible with spirituality; but also because it is a profound
source of spirituality.
 References

Bryson, B. (2003). Bill Bryson: A really short history of nearly everything. Toronto: Doubleday Canada.

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2018, January 17). Olbers' paradox. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/science/Olbers-paradox

Canales, M., Chwastyk, M., & Conant, E. (n.d.). Six things that make life on earth possible. Retrieved
April 05, 2021, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/graphics/one-strange-rock-
interactive-earth-solar-system-milky-way-galaxy

European Space Agency. (n.d.). What is 'red shift'? Retrieved April 05, 2021, from
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/What_is_red_shift

Guerrero, R. A., PhD. (2018, August). EVERYTHING AFTER THE BEGINNING: A Story of the
Universe [PDF]. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. New York: Harper Perennial.

National Geographic Society. (n.d). Earth. Retrieved April 04, 2021, from
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/earth/

National Geographic Society. (n.d.). Atmosphere. Retrieved April 04, 2021, from
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/atmosphere/

Rojas, N. L., PhD. (2018, August). Born in the Universe: Approaching the Origin of Life [PDF]. Quezon
City: Ateneo de Manila University