“Did God Create the Universe?” by Paul Davies  

Web resources:  Paul Davies, an Australian scientist, has given up his university career to be come a full-time science writer with his own home page.  His work in popularizing the implications of scientific theory for larger cultural questions, including religious matters, has led to his being awarded the Templeton prize in religion for 1995.  His lecture, “Physics and the Mind of God,” delivered upon his reception of this award deals with several of the issues with which our reading is concerned.  You may regularly find news articles on the scientific issues raised by Davies.  For example,  see “One Cosmic Question, Too Many Answers,” from the New York Times for a recent example of a news essay discussing “string theory” and “multiple universes”.

Discussion questions:

We can say that the overall aim of Davies in this essay is to argue that the implications of contemporary physics are such that traditional approaches to the question of whether God created the universe must be reconsidered.  Find two or three instances in this essay where he makes such a point.  If we agree that this is what Davies is doing, does it follow from this that he is trying to challenge the validity of certain traditional arguments supporting the existence of God?  If you think so, point to specific places in the text where he is attempting to do this.  If you think he is trying to do something else, again point to specific instances in his writing which support what you believe Davies is trying to get us to see.

What are some of the “new” discoveries of contemporary physics to which Davies is calling our attention?  What is the significance of these discoveries for his essay?

What is the traditional understanding of the “cosmological argument”?  (Notice how these are primarily involved in trying to understand what we mean by “cause” in this case — something very difficult to pin down!) What does Davies claim is necessary with respect to this argument, once we recognize the new insights of contemporary physics?  How, for example, does our understanding of a “set” (is the “universe” a set?) or “time” affect this argument?  Even granting these matters as resolved, does the notion of a universe (such as ours) created in space-time require a divine agent?

What does Davies conclude about his reflections on the significance of contemporary physics for our efforts to understand whether we can defend a traditional notion of God’s causing the universe?  Does he deny the existence of God?  If not, what does he do?

What is the relationship of these sorts of reflections to the approach of Bonaventure that we have indicated for this step?