The closest thing to a “smoking gun” for anti-God evidence is presented by Lawrence Krauss in his book A Universe from Nothing.[1] Krauss merely argues something that every Christian apologist on message boards has been dealing with since the late 90s, that is the notion that the idea that Quantum theory means that the universe popped into existence from nothing based upon the assumption that Quantum particles do the same. This is really nothing new. When I first became aware of message boards and of the strife between atheists and theists on message boards, they were arguing about this. Yet the book has be lauded by atheists like it’s their version of the advent of Christ. Almost as quickly as it manifest it was shot down again by a philosopher. I’ll come t that in a moment. Why Krauss’s book got the glamour and not some of the physicists a decade ago who were saying the same thing I don’t know. Perhaps it’s because they didn’t write whole books about it. In any case, Krauss argues that the eternal laws of Quantum mechanics produce particles out of nothing when the instability of vacuum states causes quantum fields to shift and produce different kinds of particles.[2] This seems like it’s blessed with the aura science and thus cannot be questioned, yet a philosopher dared to question. David Albert exposed the meaning of terms in this senero and exploded the whole project.
Albert
first points out that tracing the universe back to some physical
property or cause is not an explanation as to why there is something
rather than nothing.
What
if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of
the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the
world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a
position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such
question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any
further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would
that work? What would that be like?[3]
Secondly,
moving on form that difficulty, he points out that since the
enlightenment science has always assumed that at the “bottom of
everything” there is “some basic, elementary, eternally persisting,
concrete, physical stuff.”[4]
Newton had it that this “stuff” consisted of particles. At the end of
the nineteenth century it was particles and electro-magnetic fields.
“And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is
for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has
ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged.”[5]
The laws don’t tell us where the elementary “stuff” came from. The laws
concerning quantum mechanics are not exception. The laws do not tell us
where the fields came from. Moreover, every previous theory counted
particles among concrete stuff and quantum theory does not. In quantum
theory particles are understood as arrangements of fields. Some
arrangement correspond to certain numbers and kinds of particles, come
correspond to no particles.[6]
This latter arrangement, Albert tells us, is what they call “vacuum
states.” According to Albert, Krauss is arguing that the laws of
relativistic quantum field theories “entail that vacuum states are
unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why
there should be something rather than nothing.”[7]
In
other words because the state of no particles is “unstable” (it’s hard
to keep nothing from becoming something) “nothing” blows up into
something so to speak. There are problems with this account. First, we
have just seen, it assume a whole set up of laws and fields with no real
reason for them to be there (the fact that none of the theory explains a
real “why” I’ll put off until latter). Secondly, the issue of what is
meant by “nothing” is the crux of the matter. When physicists say
“nothing,” they don’t mean real actual nothing as in a lack of anything
at all. What they really mean is vacuum flux, that this pre existing
framework of law and field and the arrangement there of the and the
sporadic popping in and out of prior existing particles. As Albert says,
“Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than
giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements
of elementary physical stuff..”[8]
This is most crucial because Albert is arguing that “nothing” in terms
of no particles does not mean “nothing” in terms of now fields, or no
laws. Thus “nothing” doesn’t mean “nothing,” it means something for
which we still must account. That really blows the whole argument
because it’s not a universe from nothing, it’s a universe form something
else for which we must account, and can’t. So that means it’s just a
rehash of status quo. The book originally was introduced with a media
splash and created a sensation. Albert taking out the argument created
anther sensation. Op ed writers and bloggers began crediting Albert with
victory and a sense of hoopla began.
What
would a universe from true actual nothing really prove? If it could be
shown that the universe just started up, something form nothing (real
actual nothing) there would be no way to really demonstrate that it’s
not the Christian concept of creation ex nihilo. In fact that
would actually fit the qualifications for the basic Christian doctrine
of creation. There would be no way to prove it one way or the other
because we could never go back to the other side of nothing and
demonstrate that something isn’t causing this “something from nothing.”
The impression is given the hype about Krauss’s book that there is some
control that screens out metaphysical causes such as God. There in fact
no such control. Now of course if this were the case we could not use
that as an argument to demonstrate the existence of God. If we wanted to
use that as a God argument we would have to push the logic of it on the
grounds that something form total actual nothing is illogical and flies
in the face of every single observation we can ever make about the real
world. That would not demonstrate the reality of God. It might be a
good conjecture but it would still only be a conjecture. At that rate it
could go ether way. Yet it’s not disproof of God either. In fact,
examining the arguments made by the three atheists expositors above,
none of them actually says “here is proof there is no God.” Dawkins say
“almost certainly” and Stenger says God is a failed hypothesis. Krauss
imitates we don’t’ need him as an explanation. Something else is going
on other than disproof.
What
they are really getting at is not about proof or disproof but control
of knowledge. They actually want to replace epistemology with ideology.
They want to shut down forms of knowledge such as philosophy and
phenomenology and replace them with the atheist fortress of facts idea.
This is all really saying, all three books make the argument “we have
the fortress of facts and theism has no facts.” Of course “facts” in
this sense mean nothing more than the information that can be controlled
by atheist expositors and that supports the atheist straw God concepts.
It’s a switch from a global knowledge which includes philological
thinking about science as a respectable partner in learning and centers
everything on their realm of discourse. Thus Dawkins reduces God to the
level of a biological organism, Stenger reduces belief to the level of a
scientific hypothesis (even though belief is about something totally
removed form the workings of the physical world), and Krauss asserts
that knowledge of the physical world is the only knowledge worth
knowing. All three are reducing theological ideas to a point where they
take on physical attributes and become part of the scientific domain,
thus they can be controlled by scientists.
What is even more blunt and telling is Krauss who gives away the whole store in an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times:
The
illusion of purpose and design is perhaps the most pervasive illusion
about nature that science has to confront on a daily basis. Everywhere
we look, it appears that the world was designed so that we could
flourish.
The
position of the Earth around the sun, the presence of organic materials
and water and a warm climate — all make life on our planet possible.
Yet, with perhaps 100 billion solar systems in our galaxy alone, with
ubiquitous water, carbon and hydrogen, it isn't surprising that these
conditions would arise somewhere. And as to the diversity of life on
Earth — as Darwin described more than 150 years ago and experiments ever
since have validated — natural selection in evolving life forms can
establish both diversity and order without any governing plan.
As
a cosmologist, a scientist who studies the origin and evolution of the
universe, I am painfully aware that our illusions nonetheless reflect a
deep human need to assume that the existence of the Earth, of life and
of the universe and the laws that govern it require something more
profound. For many, to live in a universe that may have no purpose, and
no creator, is unthinkable.
But
science has taught us to think the unthinkable. Because when nature is
the guide — rather than a priori prejudices, hopes, fears or desires —
we are forced out of our comfort zone. One by one, pillars of classical
logic have fallen by the wayside as science progressed in the 20th
century, from Einstein's realization that measurements of space and time
were not absolute but observer-dependent, to quantum mechanics, which
not only put fundamental limits on what we can empirically know but also
demonstrated that elementary particles and the atoms they form are
doing a million seemingly impossible things at once.[9]
Wait
a minute, something’s wrong here. He’s taking a kind of thinking that
is used as a tool to inform us about the workings of the physical world,
and saying “because to use this tool we must assume the subject matter
of the tool is all there is, that proves that’s all there is.” That
proves nothing. Perhaps the subject matter of the tool is irrelevant to
the consideration of concepts like “purpose” and “meaning” because these
are not part of the domain in which that tool is meaningful. When the
concept of the tool becomes the only form of knowledge then of course
all other considerations must be put aside, by why should we allow that
to happen? Actually science has not taught us “to think the
unthinkable—that the universe has. No
can it ever do so. To even ask the question is beyond the scope of
science. To do science one must not assume purpose or meaning in the
workings of the physical world, yet one need not always be doing
science. This is truly what we call “ideology.” One idea fits all and
all sense data must be herded into that rubric in order to be considered
“valid.” It’s really ideological struggle between reductionism which
seek to cut off all aspects of reality save those that can be controlled
by reductionism, vs. the assumption that human aspirations are worth
considering in some way other than reductionsitically. The driving force
behind the fortress of facts is the assumption that only one kind of
thinking can be pursued. This one idea of reductionism must control and
filter all knowledge. This is nothing more than a totalitarian ideology.
Krauss
really gets blunt about the ideological ramifications in interview.
Ross Andersen publishes in the Atlantic an interview he had done with
Krauss for another project. He entitles the article “Has Physics Made
Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?”[10]
Krauss had just come from Christopher Hitchen’s memoral service, and
even he descriges as: “It was a remarkable event for a remarkable man,
and I felt very fortunate to be there. I was invited to give the opening
presentation in front of all of these literary figures and dignitaries
of various sorts, and so I began the only way I think you can begin, and
that's with music from Monty Python..”[11] Asked why the sudden public antagonism between physics and philosophy he answers:
Krauss:
That's a good question. I expect it's because physics has encroached on
philosophy. Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then
"natural philosophy" became physics, and physics has only continued to
make inroads. Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on
these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to
themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of
philosophers. This sense that somehow physicists, because they can't
spell the word "philosophy," aren't justified in talking about these
things, or haven't thought deeply about them---[12]
Philosophy
can only have “content” in so far as it reflects the workings of the
physical world? As though that’s all the content there is to have.
That’s all there is to think about. Only science is about anything. But
wait how is it that physics has encroached upon anything philosophy is
about if philosophy a bunch of made up flights of fancy. Science was
never about the meaning of life and philosophy was never about the
workings of the physical world. It’s true that science used ot be called
“natural philosophy” but hat was far from being the major section of
philosophical thought. He seems embarrassed about not being in
philosophy. He resents the idea that he can’t talk about the meaning of
life. He can talk about the meaning of life he just can’t claim
scientific authority to make pronouncements informing us all of the
meaning of life, or lack thereof.
Here is his statement on the importance of philosophy:
Krauss:
Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every
now and then in order to get people's attention. There are areas of
philosophy that are important, but I think of them as being subsumed by
other fields. In the case of descriptive philosophy you have literature
or logic, which in my view is really mathematics. Formal logic is
mathematics, and there are philosophers like Wittgenstein that are very
mathematical, but what they're really doing is mathematics---it's not
talking about things that have affected computer science, it's
mathematical logic. And again, I think of the interesting work in
philosophy as being subsumed by other disciplines like history,
literature, and to some extent political science insofar as ethics can
be said to fall under that heading. To me what philosophy does best is
reflect on knowledge that's generated in other areas. [13]
He
arbitrarily reduces logic to mathematics just because math is in the
domain of science. We could just as easily relegate math to a
subordination under philosophy on the grounds that math is based upon
logic. Russell and Whitehead proved that logic is the basis of math, and
since logic started as philosophy it would be more logical to put math
under philosophy.[14] Besides
formal logic is not mathematics. Moreover, major logicians such as
Hartshorne and Plantinga who achieved authoritative status in the use of
S5modal logic could, by Krausses logic, be seen as mathematicians and
by extension of that association as physicists. Thus their takes on the
modal argument for God must be scientific. Remarkably he actually
attributes something to fields such as history and literature. He does
that to parcel out philosophy. Of course this drive to end the very
existence of philosophy is just a bid to take over knowledge so that one
ideology prevails as the only way to think, it just happens to be the
one in which Krauss is credentialed. He wants to pretend that philosophy
is really just leeching off other disciplines when in reality he’s
moving beyond the accepted domain of science to poach on the territory
of theology, philosophy, ethics history and probably other disciplines
(mathematics and logic). It’s also worth nothing that he missed the
point on nothing in terms of the history of ideas. He claims it was the
philosophers who re-write nothing and have constantly changed its
definition when in reality it’s the philosophers who have continually
defined nothing as nothing but science Newton scientists have been
re-writing the meaning of the term to define it as “something.”15
A
humorous exchange occurs when Andersen points out that philosophy
offers a basis for computer science. Krauss says: “Well, you name me the
philosophers that did key work for computer science; I think of John
Von Neumann and other mathematicians, and---.” Andersen says: “But Bertrand Russell paved the way for Von Neumann..”
Karauss
says: “But Bertrand Russell was a mathematician. I mean, he was a
philosopher too and he was interested in the philosophical foundations
of mathematics, but by the way, when he wrote about the philosophical
foundations of mathematics, what did he do? He got it wrong.” So not
only can we take him over as one of the science boys since he did math
but (which would just as easily mean math is part of philosophy again)
but he also got it wrong about math (yet that reflects on his
philosophical side not on his math side, not real sure how that works
since it would be the math side that got it wrong). Andersen remarks
“Einstein got it wrong.” To which Krauss replies:
Krauss:
Sure, but the difference is that scientists are really happy when they
get it wrong, because it means that there's more to learn. And look, one
can play semantic games, but I think that if you look at the people
whose work really pushed the computer revolution from Turing to Von
Neumann and, you're right, Bertrand Russell in some general way, I think
you'll find it's the mathematicians who had the big impact. And logic
can certainly be claimed to be a part of philosophy, but to me the
content of logic is mathematical.[16]
Science
guys are happen when they are proved wrong? I guess he must be ecstatic
since Albert’s article? We’ll have to ask him how happy he’s been since
his book was panned. It means there’s more to learn, such as the
meaning of life and the value of philosophy. He admits logic is part of
philosophy and Russell was into both it just eludes him that this also
means philosophy is the foundation of computer science and math together
that makes it the foundation of physics. Now that’s the “unthinkable”
we should be taught to think. Maybe the fortress of facts is a house of
cards and maybe there’s more than one form of knowledge in the universe?
His answer is supercilious because a scientist being happy when he
get’s it wrong doesn’t change the fact under discussion it doesn’t
change the fact that scientist get it wrong just as philosophers
sometimes do.
Kruass
referred to Albert as “a moronic philosopher.” That doesn’t sound happy
to me. Nor does it sound very acute. Albert is so moronic in fact he is
not only a well thought of philosopher at Columbia he also holds a
Ph.D. in theoretical physics.[17]
He might to reconsider his castigation of Albert when we take a deeper
look at Karuss’s argumentation skills. He essentially gives away the
store, and thinks he’s bested his opponents.
But
I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that [something from
nothing]. That it's possible to create particles from no particles is
remarkable---that you can do that with impunity, without violating the
conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing. The fact
that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I'll be
the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily
nothing, although I will add that it was plenty good enough for
Augustine and the people who wrote the Bible. For them an eternal empty
void was the definition of nothing, and certainly I show that that kind
of nothing ain't nothing anymore.[18]
That’s
really the point Albert made and he says this as though he just doesn’t
understand the opponent’s argument. He does bring up the issue of St.
Augustine and creation ex-nihilo. He doesn’t seem to get that the
issue cuts both ways. Yet the Christian is not something from nothing,
it doesn’t post that the universe just popped into being from true
absolute nothing without a cause and for no reason. He admits that his
“nothing” is actually something, and something must be explained,
something must have caused it. What could that something be but God?
That would be the argument. He’s not answering it by throughing back the
issues ex-nihilo misunderstood (minus God) then admitting that
his own views leaves an origin form an unexplained “Something.” Andersen
raises the prospect that he’s arguing physics with Saint Augustine (who
presumably worked form Aristotelian physics thus making his view 2000
years out of date). Krauss states:
It might be more interesting than debating some of the moronic philosophers
that have written about my book. Given what we know about quantum
gravity, or what we presume about quantum gravity, we know you can
create space from where there was no space. And so you've got a
situation where there were no particles in space, but also there was no
space. That's a lot closer to "nothing."
But
of course then people say that's not "nothing," because you can create
something from it. They ask, justifiably, where the laws come from. And
the last part of the book argues that we've been driven to this
notion---a notion that I don't like---that the laws of physics
themselves could be an environmental accident. On that theory, physics
itself becomes an environmental science, and the laws of physics come
into being when the universe comes into being. And to me that's the last
nail in the coffin for "nothingness."[19]
He
seems not to understand what these “moronic philosophers” are driving
at. He keeps talking like he’s proved something if he shows that there
is no “nothing” but in fact that’s the only way his argument would work.
If no actual nothing then he has no argument at all. Then he’s just
saying “the universe came from something that we can’t account for.”
Implication: it might have needed God to create it. It only appears to
be that God is unnecessary if things can spontaneously pop up out of
true absolute nothing. Even that would not be proof since we can’t prove
there really is no cause. Yet if we could prove that that would be the
only real way to prove that God is not needed or not present. The real
answer he has that might work is based upon pure speculation. He appeals
to natural law and a supposition not in evidence that they are some
kind of accident. This just puts the atheist back at square one saying
“maybe there could be an alterative to God, maybe.”
[1] Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is something Rather Than Nothing. New York, NY: Free press, a division of Simon and Schuster, 2012.
[2] Ibid 189.
[3] David Albert, “On the Origin of Everything ‘a Universe form Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss,” New York Times Sunday Book Review (March 23, 2012). On line version URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html visited June 20, 2012. David Albert also has a Ph.D. in theoretical phsyics.
[14] ibid.
[5] ibid
[6] ibid
[7] ibid
[8] ibid
[9] Lawrence M. Krause, “A Universe Without Purpose.” Los Angeles Times, Opinion. (April 1, 2012). On line copy URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-krauss-cosmology-design-universe-20120401,0,4136597.story visited 7/2/12.
[10] Ross Andersen, “Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?” The Atlantic (April 23, 2012). Pm et 396. Online URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/ visited 7/2/12.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ibid.
[13] ibid.
[14] Principia (find)
[15] find
[16] Krauss in Andersen, ibid.
[17] Massimo Pigliucci, “Lawrence Krauss Another Physicist with an Anti-Philosophy Complex,” Rationally Speaking, blog. URL: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html visited 7/4/12
Massimo Pigluicci is a philosopher at City University of New York..
[18] Krauss In Andersen, ibid.
[18] ibid
