Refutation
If Richard Dawkins is the atheist’s rock star of biology,
Lawrence Krauss is the atheist’s rock star of physics (maybe only second to
Stephen Hawking). An engaging speaker, Dr. Krauss is a theoretical physicist
and professor at Arizona State University. While admitting that he can’t
definitely disprove God, Krauss describes himself as “an anti-theist, as my
friend Christopher Hitchens was.” He “celebrates” that by his estimation
there is no evidence for God. So it’s not just that Dr. Krauss doesn’t believe
in God —he doesn’t want there to be a God. It’s fortunate for him then
that he’s solved an absolutely puzzling question for atheists: If there is no
God, why is there something rather than nothing? At least that’s what the title
of his book implies: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather
than Nothing. But the devil is in the details. What are the details? Krauss
says the cause of the universe is not God —it is “nothing.” He cites
happenings at the quantum level to dispense with the need for God. (The quantum
level is the world of the extremely small, subatomic in size.) “One of the
things about quantum mechanics is not only can nothing become something,
nothing always becomes something,” says Dr. Krauss. “Nothing is unstable.
Nothing will always produce something in quantum mechanics.” Now, whenever
you hear something that just doesn’t sound right, you ought to ask the person
making the claim, “What do you mean by that?” In this case, the precise
question to Dr. Krauss would be, “What do you mean by ‘nothing’?” It turns out
that Dr. Krauss’s definition of “nothing” is not the “nothing” from which the
universe originated. The initial starting point of the universe was not a
quantum vacuum, which Dr. Krauss keeps referring to in his book. The initial
starting point of the universe was nonbeing —literally no thing, zip,
zero, nada. A quantum vacuum is something —it consists of fields of
fluctuating energy from which particles appear to pop in and out of existence.
Whether these particles are caused or uncaused is unknown. It could be that
they are caused but we simply can’t discover or predict how that happens. There
are at least ten different plausible models of the quantum level, and no one
knows which is correct. What we do know is that, whatever is happening there,
it is not creation out of nothing. Moreover, the vacuum isn’t eternal. The
vacuum itself had a beginning and therefore needs a cause. Lest you think I am
mad to question the physics of Dr. Krauss, please note that I am more
questioning his logic, which is required to do science of any kind. Dr. Krauss
is committing the logical fallacy known as equivocation —that is, using
the same word in an argument but with two different definitions. The “nothing”
in the title of Dr. Krauss’s book is not the “nothing” from which the universe
came. This critical distinction was not lost on fellow atheist Dr. David Albert.
A PhD in theoretical physics, Dr. Albert is a professor at Columbia University
and author of the book Quantum Mechanics and Experience. In his scathing review
of Krauss’s book in the New York Times, Dr. Albert questions both Krauss’s
logic and his physics. He pulls no punches and even uses his fist to
illustrate. Correcting Krauss’s central claim that particles emerging from the
quantum vacuum are like creation out of nothing, Dr. Albert writes: That’s just
not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states —no less
than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems —are particular
arrangements of elementary physical stuff. . . . The fact that
some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles
and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the
possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a
fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of
existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more
mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time,
as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings —if you
look at them aright —amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood
of a creation from nothing. (emphasis in the original) Speaking of fists,
Dr. Albert lands the knockout blow to Krauss’s entire thesis this way: “But all
there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong
and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.” (It’s
important to note that Dr. Albert and Columbia University are not known for
Christian fundamentalism.) Now Dr. Krauss didn’t take all this lying down. He
got up off the canvas and fought back by calling Dr. Albert “a moronic
philosopher.” It’s a mystery why Krauss crafted such an eloquent refutation
of Dr. Albert, especially since Krauss admits Dr. Albert’s point in advance. In
several places in A Universe from Nothing, Krauss acknowledges that the
“nothing” he is talking about is not exactly the nothing from which the
universe came. Krauss even puts his “nothing” in quotation marks like I just
did. In an interview, Krauss acknowledges that no matter how one defines
“nothing,” the laws of physics are not nothing. (Sorry to keep using the word
nothing, but there’s nothing else to use!) And although he’s clearly annoyed
doing so, Dr. Krauss eventually gets around to admitting that his “nothing” is
actually something. “Even if you accept this argument that nothing is not
nothing,” he says, “you have to acknowledge that nothing is being used in a
philosophical sense. But I don’t really give a damn about what ‘nothing’ means
to philosophers; I care about the ‘nothing’ of reality. And if the ‘nothing’ of
reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that.” This admission raises a
question. Since Dr. Krauss admits all this, why the bait-and-switch title: A
Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing? Why smuggle
in the laws of physics and the quantum vacuum and then call it “nothing”? Why
disparage philosophers who are only trying to bring the book’s assertions back
to reality? Krauss seems to think that philosophers are not talking about
reality, when in fact, that’s exactly what philosophy is —the study of
ultimate reality. The problem for Krauss is twofold. First, reality is not
merely physical stuff. Since nature and the laws of physics themselves had a
beginning, ultimate reality is beyond nature or supernatural. Therefore,
despite claiming to explain how the universe came from nothing, Krauss has
explained nothing. The second problem is a far more serious intellectual
disease that infects the thinking of Krauss and several other prominent
atheists as well. This disease is so severe that it threatens the accuracy of
the very science they seek to promote. Krauss, like Dawkins and Hawking, is
dismissive of philosophy. Now, having studied a lot of wacky philosophy myself,
I sympathize with them. But the existence of wacky philosophy doesn’t discredit
the existence of good philosophy any more than the existence of wacky science
discredits the existence of good science. While it is true that one can use bad
philosophy, it is impossible to use no philosophy. In fact —and this is
the essential point —Krauss, Dawkins, and the like can’t do science
without philosophy. While scientists are usually seeking to understand physical
cause and effect, science itself is built on philosophical principles that are
not physical themselves —they are beyond the physical (metaphysical).
Those principles help the scientist make precise definitions and clear
distinctions and then interpret all the relevant data rationally. What exactly
is relevant? What exactly is rational? What exactly is the best interpretation
of the data —including what exactly is or isn’t “nothing”? Those questions
are all answered through the use of philosophy. We’ll unpack this in more
detail in the Science chapter. But for now, the main point is that science is
done more in the mind than the lab. Think about all the philosophical judgments
a scientist must make throughout the scientific process of making a hypothesis,
gathering data, and then interpreting that data. Nature doesn’t develop or
evaluate hypotheses. It doesn’t gather or interpret data. And data certainly
doesn’t interpret itself. The mind of the scientist does, and all that requires
philosophy. (Perhaps that’s why the “Ph” in PhD stands for “philosophy.” The
originators of advanced degrees knew that philosophy is the foundation of every
area of inquiry.) If you abandon good philosophy, you end up with bad science.
And if you disdain all philosophy, as Krauss and company tend to do, then you
put yourself in the self-defeating position of holding a philosophy that
disdains all philosophy. As Etienne Gilson said, “Philosophy always buries its
undertakers.” Indeed, you can’t get away from philosophy. It’s like logic.
To deny it is to use it. C. S. Lewis famously wrote, “Good philosophy must
exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be
answered.” Krauss and his colleagues think they are dispensing with
philosophy, when in fact they are actually using bad philosophy. They are
modern-day examples of Einstein’s observation that “the man of science is a
poor philosopher.” In the end, despite the lofty promises of his book’s title,
Dr. Krauss explains nothing about the ultimate origin of the universe. Nothing
can’t create anything because, as Aristotle put it, “nothing is what rocks
dream about.” Unless some powerful agent intervenes, the ancient maxim still
stands: out of nothing, nothing comes. But there’s still another argument Dr.
Krauss provides to dispense with God. Unfortunately for him, if his argument
proves successful, Dr. Krauss would wind up dispensing with himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment