Chapter 1: Midnight Musings on Existence

It’s 2:38 a.m. and I find myself awake. My child has tangled her leg in the crib, and after freeing her, she drifts back to sleep. However, I am not so fortunate. I settle in with a half-empty bottle of Malbec and indulge in existential videos on YouTube. Tonight’s feature is Professor David Kipping’s contemplative exploration of the question: why is there something rather than nothing?

In a twist of irony, this very question keeps Professor Kipping awake at night. He, like many others across fields of science, philosophy, art, and religion, grapples with this deep metaphysical dilemma.

Kipping opens the video by discussing the “limits of what can be known.” He elaborates on how our universe emerged from absolute nothingness—not merely the absence of matter, but the complete void of space itself, intertwined with quantum mechanics.

He proceeds to dismantle common scientific explanations for existence arising from nothingness, eventually confronting the unsettling notion that perhaps the universe exists without any scientific justification. This idea, referred to as a brute fact, implies that further inquiry into this cosmic puzzle may be futile because it cannot be scientifically substantiated; the universe simply exists, and we must accept it.

However, Kipping is reluctant to accept this brute fact. If we allow such an explanation for the universe's inception, where do we draw the line in our scientific exploration?

This perspective raises valid concerns. For a scientist, it’s a challenging notion to accept: saying, “We cannot scientifically validate something as profound as the universe? Just label it a brute fact.”

Interestingly, this mindset parallels the God of the Gaps concept—only from a scientific viewpoint. Coined by Sir Isaac Newton, the God of the Gaps theory posits that “God is called upon to explain phenomena that science cannot.” This notion served as a crutch for maintaining the belief in God during the rise of modern science. When faced with unknowns like black holes or subatomic particles, the answer would often be to invoke God.

Today, many scientists reject the God of the Gaps approach, as it halts genuine scientific inquiry. This is not only detrimental to scientific progress but, I would argue, it can also lead to misguided theology.

When grappling with the profound questions of existence and purpose, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Are we to choose the brute fact or attribute the existence of everything to God?

Kipping argues that attributing creation to God complicates matters further. He believes that substituting God as an explanation for existence fails to provide satisfactory answers in the scientific realm.

The renowned astronomer Carl Sagan echoed this sentiment, suggesting that God is not necessary for understanding the universe. He posed the question, “Who created God if God created the universe?” If God has always existed, then why not simply assert that the universe has also always been?

Yet, Kipping and Sagan's arguments overlook how these inquiries affect our existential, spiritual, and moral dimensions.

Section 1.1: The Interplay of Science and Morality

Can Kipping and Sagan indeed address moral questions, life purpose, or the foundations of healthy relationships through a purely scientific lens? What implications does a worldview based solely on brute facts have for our political, social, or academic lives? Do we possess any universally recognized purpose or ethics?

Such a viewpoint seems to rely on an act of (brute) faith—even for scientists.

From my perspective, I hope science can uncover as many answers as possible about our universe. However, I would be misleading myself if I believed that scientific explanations provide a definitive understanding of life’s purpose. Such an expectation may be an exercise in futility.

So, I choose to maintain my faith in God. Critics may argue that my reliance on the God of the Gaps is as misguided as accepting brute facts as the foundation of existence. They might have a point.

Nevertheless, as a theologian, I find it impossible to venerate the creation over the Creator. I perceive beauty, awe, and mystery in our universe, but these do not offer me hope or moral guidance in my daily life.

My faith in God supplies me with meaning and the potential for personal transformation. I remain aligned with the God of the Gaps in relation to metaphysical questions. I would be the first to reconsider my stance if science were to definitively unravel every mystery of existence. Until that time, I find solace in the spiritual richness of my faith.

The question of why there is something instead of nothing continues to haunt Professor Kipping.

For me, however, the matter of existence is overshadowed by more pressing concerns—like how to earn enough as a theologian to buy a new crib.