God and the Astronomers

by Robert Jastrow

If every effect in science has a cause, what caused the birth of the Universe? Have scientists brought themselves face to face with the possibility of God? In God and the Astronomers , Dr. Robert Jastrow, world-renowned astrophysicist, describes the astronomical discoveries of recent years and the theological implications of the new insights afforded by science into mankind's place in the cosmos. He explains the chain of events that forced astronomers, despite their initial reluctance ("Irritating," said Einstein; "Repugnant," said the great British astronomer Eddington; "I would like to reject it," said MIT physicist Philip Morrison) to accept the validity of the Big Bang and the fact that the universe began in a moment of creation.

Genres: Science, Astronomy, Religion, Nonfiction, Faith, Theology, Christian

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1978

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is enthusiastically quoted in Collins's The Language of God , and when I saw a copy going yesterday for only 5 Swiss francs I couldn't resist the chance to learn more. It's an odd piece of work, and its author seems to have been an odd person. According to Wikipedia, he had an extremely distinguished career at NASA, among other things serving as the first chairman of the Lunar Exploration Committee and leading the Theoretical Division for several years. But he was also a co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, which is described in the following terms:

Jastrow together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg established the George C. Marshall Institute to counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took the view that tobacco was having no effect, that Acid Rain was not caused by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming. Jastrow acknowledged the earth was experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be natural variation.

The preface says that God and the Astronomers is based on a Phi Beta Kappa lecture given in 1978, and it does indeed have a somewhat insubstantial feel; it's short, and a lot of it consists of pictures. You can read the whole thing in a couple of hours, including the two afterwords. The basic idea is nice, and it's a thought I've had myself several times. Somehow, the faith-based community has dropped the ball as far as the Big Bang is concerned. Mainstream science was notoriously reluctant to accept the theory, and many scientists went on record as calling it Creationism in disguise. In 1951, Pope Pius XII even gave a public address where he said that the Big Bang provided scientific validation of Genesis. So how has the Christian Church allowed things to get to the point where Krauss, in A Universe from Nothing , claims that the Big Bang proves God doesn't exist? You (or, at least, I) can't help wanting to help save those poor creationists from themselves.

Well, Jastrow should maybe get some of the blame, because God and the Astronomers is a surprisingly poor piece of work. To start off with, it's one of the worst-produced books I've ever seen: the layout is horrible, the editing is very bad (the same anecdote about Slipher is presented twice in the first two chapters), and at one point two pages actually appear out of sequence. The author expresses his gratitude to "Sally Bassett for exceptional dedication and ability in carrying out many tasks of editing, indexing and proofreading"; one wonders if this is ironic. The content is better, but, although Jastrow writes quite well, he is appallingly sloppy and careless with his facts. He misrepresents Hubble's discovery of the expansion of the universe. He makes it sound as though Einstein initially refused to accept the expanding universe for religious/philosophical reasons (Einstein just hated singularities, and was equally skeptical about black holes), and he gives the impression that Einstein reluctantly endorsed it only near the end of his life (he was a convert by the early 30s). Most surprisingly, Jastrow makes obvious mistakes when describing how the chemical elements are formed in stars. If he'd looked through Hoyle's 1955 Frontiers of Astronomy - a best-selling popular science book in its time - he'd have seen that his account was quite wrong.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the book is that, once again, it shows how hard it is to decide what can and can't be understood by science. The philosopher Comte famously said in 1835 that it would never be possible to know what the stars were made of; 30 years later, Huggins used spectroscopy to prove him wrong. Here, Jastrow says in 1978 that we will never be able to understand what happened in the Big Bang, because all the evidence was destroyed by the enormous temperature of the early universe. And again, just 30 years later, WMAP produces a detailed picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which gives a wealth of information about what happened.

Nonetheless, Jastrow seems to have sold reasonably well, while Kragh's meticulously researched Matter and Spirit in the Universe: Scientific and Religious Preludes to Modern Cosmology is virtually unknown. And it's not random. With all his faults, Jastrow is entertaining, while Kragh's book - it pains me to admit it - often left me feeling rather sleepy. There's a lesson here, though it's a depressing one.
________________________________

Jastrow is unflatteringly mentioned in Donald Prothero's chapter, "The Holocaust Denier's Playbook and the Tobacco Smokescreen", from Pigliucci and Boudry's Philosophy of Pseudoscience:

... one of the key strategies of tobacco companies and other organizations trying to deny an inconvenient scientific reality is to look for anyone with credentials who will serve as a "front person" for their cause and give them scientific credibility. These "experts" often turn out to be scientists with no relevant training in the field in question, yet because of their past (irrelevant) scientific laurels, they are taken seriously by the press and public. The shocking thing that Oreskes and Conway document in their 2010 book Merchants of Doubt is that just a few individuals (Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, William Nierenberg, Robert Jastrow and a few more) were at the front of every one of these attempts to deny scientific reality... defending tobacco companies, energy companies, chemical companies and the like against the evidence for smoking-related cancer, secondhand smoke, anthropogenic global warming, the ozone hole, acid rain and the "nuclear winter" scenario.

[Jeffrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

If every effect in science has a cause, what caused the birth of the universe? Have scientists, with ultimate irony, brought themselves face to face with the possibility of God?

I quote Dr. Jastrow's astonishingly candid closing statement in the last paragraph of this book as the best summation of this book's premise:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd read Gamow in elementary school and Jastrow's Red Giants and White Dwarfs in high school, supplementing such occasional forays into scientific cosmology with issues of Scientific American, but really didn't keep up with developments much. Graduating from seminary, however, gave me the time and an interest in reacquainting myself with Jastrow via this book about the philosophical, even theological, problems posed by contemporary astrophysics and cosmology.

Frankly, I found it perplexing that Jastrow primarily conceives of such questions as "what caused the big bang?" in theological terms at all. While the question may be valid, bringing in the god-concept introduces a whole lot of baggage which just obfuscates what is, more neutrally speaking, a philosophical question. Causality is more adequately addressed, I think, by Kant.

[Michael Santini · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is relatively short, simple, and to the point. The universe has been proven to have had a beginning (the Big Bang expansion) and therefore, scientists are in trouble. There is no way to explain a beginning, other than G-o-d. Many refuse to acknowledge the Creator, so they squirm and come up with all sorts of other concoctions, like the multi-universe theory and the quantum theory of nothingness. From a biblical faith perspective, there is only one clear way out for the scientist. Acknowledge the Creator in this life, rather than face Him in the next life.

[Jun · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this in one sitting, it's so good. As an astronomer and believer, it's incredible to see both combined in a discussion not in opposition, but as complimentary to one another. It's a very easy read for laypeople, highly recommend if you're religious and interested in science, or a scientist curious about a religious view of the Universe and Creation.

[Tom Meyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating book that has aged both extremely well and extremely poorly.

As a short history of 20th century astronomy, it holds up remarkably well, even after 30 years. Starting with the realization that there are galaxies other than our own at the turn of the century, the book follows the series of discoveries that led to the theory -- and later confirmation of -- the Big Bang, and does so in a very conversational, easy-to-follow way. Jastrow also goes out of his way to humanize the subject by spending a good deal of time on the biographies of some of the scientists involved.

Its philosophical discussion, however, is remarkably outdated; frankly, that's what makes the book so interesting. Jastrow was amazed at how many of his colleagues (especially among those who were atheists) took an instant disliking to the Big Bang. This dislike had little to do with the evidence for the theory; rather, it was based on a philosophical prejudice against a universe that had a definitive First Cause without antecedent. If the universe was created, it follows that there may be a Creator. Jastrow comes to no definitive conclusion, but strongly implies that religion may have the last laugh on the scientists.

What makes this so outdated is that this controversy no longer exists; though some scientists may have resisted the theism-friendly Big Bang initially, none do so now. After examining the evidence (and their biases), they've abandoned their old ideas in favor of the new ones that better explain and predict the Cosmos. Compare that with Creationists who -- 150 years after The Origins of Species -- are still opposing evolution for philosophical, not empirical reasons.

[Geoff Steele · Rating 5 out of 5]

God and the Astronomers
Astronomers (Hubble, Humanson) discovered galaxies moving away from the earth. Thus, the universe is expanding. Red light shifts were used to measure how fast the galaxy was moving away from earth. This indicates a start to the universe. Repudiates the ‘Steady State’ theory of the Universe. Hubble’s law: objects further away moving faster and further than closer objects, like drawing two spots on a balloon. Blow the balloon up with air, as the spots move away from each other, the further away the spot gets from each other, the faster it moves away from the other spot. (I think, made this up on as I write this. The air in the balloon would have to be a ‘steady’ flow).
The concept of an expanding universe at first upset Einstein b/c this pointed to a definite beginning of the universe, which implies a creation or ‘prime mover’ as the scientist like to say, that started everything. The ‘big bang’ theory is the start the author believes in, but he does not rule out a that the creation of the big bang was in fact caused by God. So this is a marriage of the believe in God and cosmic evaluation. Well this is nice, better than the believe in no God I guess. And at least the author admits that creation is outside the realm of standard science, e.g. it is not observable and subject to replication is scientific experiments. Which is also nice. But this book was written in the 1980’s. Since then the hostility towards religion by science has gone up in degrees, just look at Niel Degrass Tyson’s opinions.

[Jake Page · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting read. Robert Jastrow is a self-proclaimed agnostic, and he gives a history of the discovery of the new cosmology starting with Einstein and Hubble and ending today.

Evidence is given for the Big Bang (the universe exploded into existence in a moment, and is not eternal). The discovery of the expanding universe is also addressed, but the vernacular is not overly scientific. I love this topic because it always leaves the people studying it wondering how things got to be how they are on a cosmic scale.

He ends the book with this quote: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends in a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

[Matt Friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

In spite of a sometimes uneven writing style, a great account of the development of the Big Bang theory, and the inherent theological implications found therein. One of the most quoted lines concludes the penultimate chapter.

[Merilyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very easy read...mostly biographical and historical from the early 1900s to the 1978 copyright date.
I read it in one sitting and enjoyed the afternoon spent with it.

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

Now we would like to pursue that inquiry further back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory, at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

An engaging and interesting work on the "new cosmology" examining various aspects of the universe; the "Big Bang Theory," "Steady State Theory," the "Primordial Fireball," the curvature of space and what that entails for mankind as it examines the physiological universe in which it inhabits. Something he touches on only briefly, but that could certainly use its own treatment is the, "religion of science."

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. Einstein wrote, "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation."

This, as motivating factor for scientific exploration, is and should be an imperative: one must believe that something can be discovered or understood in some sense before one sets out to do just that. However, science, itself, is limited in scope by observation of the physical, and observation alone, of "what is; a system of theorizing based on the examination of reproductive causalities that produce what we consider laws of reality until disproven in some manner at which point that law is further elucidated upon to help us further believe we understand reality in a certain manner.

The problem arises when science comes to a place in which it is impossible for it to be practiced in a way that provides any empirical probabilities to examine--one such moment Jastrow uses as an example is the period of time before the Big Bang. Was there matter prior to the Big Bang? Was there a universe before the Big Bang? Is the "Theory of an Oscillating Universe" correct and we exist within an eternal, ever-expanding, then shrinking, then expanding universe in which it is created, exists, is pulled back into itself due to gravitational influences and then compressively reborn again in a new "Big Bang," erasing all that was before it. Science cannot tell us these things, though the people involved can certainly have heartfelt opinions on the matter resulting in some rather stilted scientific observations that refuse to entertain the possibility of anything other than what "the science" can show.

This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implicatins--in science this is known as, "refusing to speculate"--or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker.

Jastrow presents some relatively technical experiments and their results pushing for specific theorems and hypotheses, and ultimately arrives at what he feels to be a generally, though still contested, position: the universe had a beginning. What kind of beginning that was and what force activated it is beyond scientific explanation. Science, which is simply the examination of "what is," can never really provide certain answers to the question, "why," particularly when posed to areas in which we have no empirical sight. Science, as Jastrow concludes, can speak of physical matters, but not of metaphysical ones, which maintain their position squarely in teleology; a land in which practical science has no lasting ground on which to stand and in which only the theoretical has any claim.

We must, however, recognize that teleology is a metaphysical concept whose ultimate reality cannot be affirmed or denied on the basis of empirical or scientific evidence. Despite scientific claims to the contrary, the destiny or meaning of the human race, and of the cosmic order, cannot be ascertained by a study of discrete biological or historical events. It is no more logical to argue that the world has no ultimate cause or purpose than to argue that it does--in both cases the empirical or scientific evidence for deciding the matter is inadequate.

[Bridgette · Rating 4 out of 5]

📚 God And The Astronomers ••• Robert Jastrow ••• ⭐⭐⭐⭐/5

🔷️ Very interesting book. First off, it's readable and relatable, which is kind of huge when you're reading a book penned by a renowned astronomer. The concepts are relatively easy and tangibly understandable.

🔷️ I wanted to read this because there are few astronomers (let alone other scientists) that will openly admit that they believe in God as the Grand Creator. This was similar to watching the interviews with various doctors + scientists in the series: "Viewpoints On The Origin Of Life"... all of them faith-enhancing.

🔷️ A favorite quote: "Now three lines of evidence--the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars--point to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning." This absolutely confirms that Jehovah created the universe.

🔷️ Things I learned and/or confirmed from the book:
1. The universe was created at a precise moment in time and has been quickly expanding since then (at crazy fast speeds!!! Like 100s of billions mph)
2. Thermodynamics is the science of the relationship between heat, work, temperature, and energy. Basically converting one thing into another.
3. How stars are formed... it's all about hydrogen. Gravity's effect on hydrogen atoms produces energy as heat, and (I found this fascinating!) as the nuclear fire burns it leaves behind a residue of heavier elements like ashes. These ashes include oxygen, iron, copper, gold, lead, uranium, etc. "All the elements of the Universe were formed in this way in the interior of stars, out of the basic building block of hydrogen." Isn't Jehovah AMAZING?!?! What wonders he can do with holy spirit!

🔷️ The info about other scientists, astronomers, physicists, mathematicians, and their discoveries was interesting as I'd never heard of or had limited knowledge about some of them.

🔷️ Could've done without the afterwords by the 2 other people. They really didn't add much and somewhat muddled the science.

🔷️ Would recommend if you want to read something scientific that will strengthen your faith in our exceptional Creator, Jehovah.

[Joe Biscoe IV · Rating 4 out of 5]

An easy read that could take only an afternoon. Simply presented and straightforward information on a few of the mechanisms of the universe. Red Shift and the expanding universe, the formation and subsequent “death” of stars. Jastrow accurately labels the problem of science these days as the “religion of science” and truthfully declares that any leap to explain the beginning of the universe is a faith leap. He’s also accurate in stating that science is unable to answer such questions and shouldn’t be relied upon to do such. Jastrow has a pretty famous quote that ends the main section of the book “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ig- norance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” That just about sums it up. I would laud his honesty and calling it like it is as a scientist himself.

He does not seem to be arguing for the Big Bang as it is taught generally. But he does not make a strong stand on God creating the universe. He stops where the observations stop. That is, the universe began. His writing seems to indicate a belief in God. But Mr. Jastrow is a self proclaimed agnostic.

[Zarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Easy to read through if you're like me and science goes over your head.
Overall it was interesting and a good summary of how a "beginning" was found and the expanding universe theory.

I see a lot of comments about how this book is pointless...for only the creationist...but as a creationist I have to tell you I find it kinda funny when the anti-religious people say Jastrow didn't need to tie in God...well of course he didn't need to. (He also points out how science is very much so like a religion--cough cough.)
The point is that what theologians believed in--a beginning--was found to be true. Jastrow is still agnostic; this book has nothing to do with creationism.
There have been plenty of biblical things backed up by science--it's interesting sure, but it's not the reason I believe in the bible. Why? because scientific theories can, and have, changed.

Also, I think before anyone reads this book they need to realize it was published in 1978.

1978.

It doesn't make the book useless, but science discovers new things all the time. This book is a bit dated.

Overall, I still am glad to have read it because it was a small history of the evolution of science during the time these discoveries were being made.

That was more of a rant, but oh well.

[Paul McAfee · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a peculiar little book. It’s quite short, and the author, Robert Jastrow, was a founder and first director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

This book basically presents the scientific research that supports the Big Bang theory, and then states that since the universe was created at that point in time, it supports the biblical version of creation that states “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”, i.e. that something unknown to science, and perhaps unknowable, created the universe.

That’s pretty much it. The description of the science behind the big bang is very clear, mostly focused on Hubble’s efforts which showed that all of the stars were moving away from the earth; which suggests that they are all moving away from each other; which suggests that they must have been closer to each other previously; which suggests that at some point in time they were all squished together in one point in space and the reason they are moving away from each other now is that there must have been a big bang, approximately 20 billion years ago.

This book is a quick read, perhaps an hour or two, but gives clear details on how Hubble and others discovered these very interesting facts about the universe.

[Jeff Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great explanation of the theory that the universe had a beginning. Jastrow, an agnostic, gives fair treatment to the possibility of a creator operating outside the laws of nature as a possible explanation, and does a good job of noting that scientific objection is often emotional and subjective, rather than evidence based. Much has probably been introduced since 1978 in the way of scientific discovery, but it doesn’t sound all that different than the science I’ve been taught and have studied in recent years.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent book on the discoveries of cosmology as it relates to the birth and destiny of the universe and a scientist's coming to grips with the theological ramifications of those discoveries. Jastrow explains in the first chapter he is an agnostic, but by the end of the book, he is honest as he draws out the implications for the scientific discoveries that the universe indeed had a beginning.

[Taylor Barkley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short, informative, prompts some deep thoughts. The copy I read seemed dated so I was left wondering how much of the science was still relevant or forefront in the field. Either way it was a good history and story of how and why some science happens.

[Rebecca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whew. This one made my brain hurt a little bit, but was a really well laid out explanation of the Big Bang theory and what science can and can't explain about the known universe and the beginning of creation.

[Brittany]

Recommended from the unexpected adventure

[Chang Dai · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book provides a pretty good overview of our universe. But I expected more debate or discussion of the topic between God and Science which I failed to see. Overall a good read, informative.

[Naomi J · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great summation of the beliefs of astronomers (at least in the 70s) and how they have a religion of reason behind their motives.

[Artie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick read that does a good job of simply explaining some of the theories about the nature of the universe.

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Basic description of how the universe started whether by a God or not is left for the reader to decide.

[Robert Madsen]

Why do we think that science and faith are mutually exclusive? This refreshing book shows otherwise.

[Frederick · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is terrible. Its just public relations for physics. Don't waste your time. I wish I could remember where I read that this was important. Yuchh.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great summary of the origins of the Big Bang Theory. The author, a prominent astronomer as well as an agnostic, gives a brief summary of the key scientists and their contributions. Interestingly, he talks about how many in the scientific community pushed back against the idea of a big bang because it suggested a beginning - a little too close to what religions have been teaching for millennia.

"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases."

[Joshua Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written by the agnostic Dr. Robert Jastrow, a prominent astronomer, cosmologist, and physicist, this work is notable for its introductions to some of the key players in the evolution of scientific thought on the current models of the known universe. Jastrow's work is notable for his bemused notation of the fact that many "objective" and "rationalist" scientists are in fact rooting for certain outcomes and ideas, and are not the impartial seekers of truth they are often portrayed as in media and culture. This rooting takes especial form in intellectual attempts to seek out evidence which will preclude the need for a belief in a designer or a creator. Worthwhile for those seeking enlightenment regarding the intellectual climate of the sciences.

[Chanelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very hard to read, but very interesting. I believe in the Big Band Theory now, but don't think it should be taught without recognizing God's place in it. My favorite part of the whole book is ~

"The scientist has scale the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock,, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

[Carol Mann Agency]

Dr. Jastrow places the facts before us so lucidly that the Cosmos becomes a living thing. -- John Barkham Reviews

Jastrow's scientific credentials are impeccable. And he knows how to write for the layman. -- The New York Times

Lucid, delightful, instructive. -- The Wall Street Journal

Robert Jastrow ranks among the top writers on astronomy. -- Publishers Weekly