Big Bang or Big Bounce?

DISCLAIMER: This essay was written in 2006, prior to my graduate school, and prior to a career working in Episcopal Schools. Although I think much of the content here holds up as a theological meditation on cosmology, I am sure that the scientific nomenclature used, and perhaps even the underlying science presupposed, has changed since then. So, please consider both the time it was written and the purposes it was written for.

One of the major headaches (and blessings) of having really smart kids in your youth group is that they ask really tough questions. Today, I got one from Marcus. Really, it wasn't so much of a question as "Whaddaya think about this? Huh?" You see, Marcus, just for fun, was looking at articles on quantum physics and the origins of the Universe (yeah, that's what kids in my youth group do). And he came across an article about a new hypothesis put forth by Penn State quantum physicist Abhay Ashtekar, in which Ashtekar says that as the universe eventually implodes on itself into an infinitely small "ball" of matter-energy-space-time, certain "tears" occur in the multi-dimensional fabric of space time, which actually reverse the force of gravity, and turn it into an explosive force. This results in what is termed the "big bounce", in which the universe bounces out from the "ball" and creates a new universe. What this theory implies is that the universe and space time are infinite, and every time the universe "dies" in the "big crunch", it is "re-born" in the "big bang".

A Raging Moderate Searches for Truth, part 1: On the limitations of scientific knowledge

Over the centuries, many great Christian thinkers have either taught that theology is a "science", or that "scientific methods" can be used to established the truths of theology. While theology can be construed as a sort of science (i.e. following the lead of Aquinas who defined it as a "sub-altern" science), I think that to hold theology in bondage to the "scientific method" is to deeply damage both theology and science. They are simply different kinds of knowledge and different kinds of knowing, and to conflate the two, or to use one to back up the other is simply wrong headed. One look at the creation-evolution debate is a good example of how neither science nor theology come out winners when used to "validate" one another.