“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.”
For those who haven’t encountered this quote before, it’s from American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist, Robert Jastrow. This statement has been championed by theists and has even found its way into high profile debates against atheists. I probably wouldn’t have given much consideration to it had it not been thrown at me on more than one occasion. I assume it’s touted by theists so ardently because they think it carries significant weight simply because of his scientific credentials (and not on the scientific merit of the statement itself, proving once again that in apologetics, it’s not what is said but who is saying it). It would seem that Jastrow’s renown is all that is needed to confer the stamp of legitimacy, even if the statement itself doesn’t pass muster.
So what are we to make of this? Many of us will no doubt balk at such an irresponsible utterance, having heard such rhetoric before, but it deserves a retort if for nothing else than the widespread patronization of it by crass apologists.
In taking a closer look, right away we see there are problems. Not just with the statement itself, but also with the way theists present it. For example, it is often used as a point of argument by theists that Jastrow was a self-professed agnostic, but given the many interviews he’s given in various Christian forums, and by the tone of his books, like as evident by the statement on offer here, he’s pretty clearly of a theistic (or at least deistic) slant. Funny how these same theists that prop up this tripe as an honest concession of a skeptic fail to take into consideration that an agnostic can in principle be a theist and continue on portraying him as if he were of the more common atheistic type.
Also, I could spend quite some time addressing other obvious issues that jump out to me. Like in the use of the word “faith” here or the way theology is expressed to take precedent over science (It is a bit surprising to hear such a dismissal if science coming from a scientist). These two issues alone could fill an entire book. But I’d rather focus on analyzing the symbolism of the analogy itself because there’s several problems contained within that I don’t think Jastrow anticipated. In my analysis, I noticed how this analogy could easily be used against theology instead of in support of it. And the finale is that it actually exposes what has been argued by my fraternity to be true of theology in the modern scientific climate all along, and that is that science has passed this antiquated ideology by and left it far behind. Allow me to illustrate what I mean, then offer a response to Jastrow’s analogy in kind.
First, it could be asked if they’re even on the same mountain as theology never answered any such questions about reality. But for the sake of argument, we’ll assume they are. If they did happen to reach any point of the mountain before the scientist, it wasn’t because they knew where they were going nor did they even know where they were. They were essentially wandering in the dark and lost. But it’s even worse for the theologians because in their faith induced self assuredness, they stopped climbing the mountain (the scientist is greeted by the theologians who are just sitting there). Their religious faith gave them the illusion that they have reached the top. We see that the theologians here assume they have met the scientist at a pinnacle that, as science has shown us, hasn’t been reached. Their faith essentially serves as clouds obscuring their view to what lies beyond. And this is the obstacle religious faith creates.
So now that I laid a bit of foundation, allow me to offer (oh so humbly) my response to Jastrow’s careless analogy. This is what the logical conclusion to the story would be…
“As the scientist sat amongst the theologians, he found that he was not content with just faithfully sitting on the rocks. His commitment to reason and scientific inquiry compelled him to explore further and he discovered that the mountain continued past the clouds that had kept the theologians from seeing any higher. So he began climbing further up and out of the clouds to find the vast universe beginning to open up to him as he left the theologians below to gloat by their dwindling fire beneath the cover of the clouds. Left clouded by their faith, they arrogantly thought they had reached the highest peak and so they just sat… as they have for centuries.”
– Rich Hess
 From God and the Astronomers, Robert Jastrow (1978). Jastrow’s allegory was about the Big Bang Theory (which many fundamentalist Christians still deny). This isn’t relevant to this particular discussion however and I only mention it here for accuracy. But for further research, I recommend looking up works from philosophers of science, such as Quintin Smith, and any number of contemporary physicists and cosmologists (Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Victor Stenger, just to name a few) who explain the Big Bang and why the theologians are wrong.
 The example I had in mind was the debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens (23:44 mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVZnwZdh-iM
 Now I’m not going to go out on a limb and speculate that he was a believer in God, but it’s enough to point out that there is a distinction in how we are to understand “agnosticism” here. It’s certainly safe to say that he was sympathetic to theology.
 After all, it’s theologians that teach as fact Noah’s Flood, the Genesis creation myth, talking animals, etc. Even if they were to stumble onto some observation that turned out to be factual (or even partially factual), we can hardly credit their “methods” of getting there.
 The “clouds” here represent the theologians faith. In thinking they had all the answers they were looking for as prescribed by their religious dictates, they were ignorant of the possibility of there being anything beyond. And thus they have stopped searching. Unlike religion, in science, the climb is never ended.
7 thoughts on “Further Up The Mountain: A Response to Robert Jastrow’s Infamous Quote”
Scientists finally discover “the mystery of creation” and it’s the same answer give by theologians for centuries? What’s that, “God did it?” That’s the stupidest quotation I’ve ever heard. It reveals absolutely nothing. It’s just a claim that theologians are studying something real and discoverable by science. Total bullshit, the whole “God did it” is a fallacy. What did the scientists find another gap in their knowledge, the god of the gaps?
The discovery being discussed is that the universe is not eternal, and that matter along with space/time all had a definite beginning in a one-time event. Hence an atheist is forced to deal with a causal agent which is necessarily immaterial and exists outside of space and time, or believe that the universe will create itself out of nothing provided the laws of physics are in place. But that raises the next question of where the laws of physics came from, and why are they of such precision that if altered infinitesimally, the universe wouldn’t exist at all. It takes a form of literal insanity to believe that life and the universe are the result of blind forces over time, particularly knowing that there was a time when there was no time and hence no time in which anything to happen. Quantum physics disproved materialism over a century ago, and now physics, cosmology, molecular biology/biochemistry have shown that naturalism is headed the way of the dinosaurs in terms of having any explanatory power regarding the origin of life and the universe. Good luck out there. You’ll need it.
Your thoughts on the Jastrow quote are interesting and really ignore what he was saying. The universe wasn’t always here, it’s not an illusion, didn’t come from nothing, by nothing. The big bang couldn’t have caused itself, and the universe couldn’t have brought itself into being. That’s why the atheistic scientist finds himself confronted by the theologians when his refusal to examine evidence outside of the physical runs him into a brick wall.
But you’re missing the author’s final point! Physicists such as Hawking and Krauss have proven that the universe can and will create itself out of nothing provided that the laws of quantum mechanics are in place. And as we all know, precise, prescriptive physical laws don’t require an explanation at all. That would frustrate our philosophical objections entirely. And the apparent exceptional fine tuning of the laws of physics can easily be explained if one assumes at least 10^120 other universes, for which there’s no evidence whatsoever, and while operating within an innumerable amount of unsupported assumptions, but that’s hardly the point. Science has proven that the universe can and will create itself out of nothing for no reason provided we make countless assumptions to circumvent the philosophical implications of empirical scientific data. Pay no attention to the God behind the universe. We all just got really, really lucky, and are the recipients of an inexplicable cosmic accident which has a naturalistic explanation tantamount to a miracle—we’re just not exactly sure what it is yet. But fear not, science is leaving less and less room for God with each new discovery. For instance, we now know how inanimate matter spontaneously generated into the genetic code, simultaneously along with its bio molecular mechanisms necessary for gene transcription, regulation, expression, translation, and finally replication. So the gap is getting smaller. Wait…what? Someone just told me we have no idea how the genetic code formed. Hold on, what? Spontaneous generation was disproven how long ago? Oh, okay. Well, I could explain all of this but I have a debate to go to and I could really use the $10,000. I’ll be back to answer all of your questions. I promise.
My Goodness, what a snarky reply. Kudos to you and you’ve got my vote for the, Dave Berry “People Who Think They’re Far More Clever Than They Actually Are” award. And good luck with the, Donald Trump “Master of all Knowledge in the Physical Universe” sweepstakes!
I don’t know who you are sir but it seems like you misunderstood Mr. Jastrow’s quote. Happy 2019.
Thank you for commenting. I do not believe that I misunderstand. Please refer to the notes at the bottom. Also, I am responding to the way apologists commonly use his quote in debates.