I was mulling over whether to post a piece on dark energy and the idea of ‘creation from nothing’, when our colleague Marcelo Gleiser (Dartmouth) did just that, with this insightful piece. For comparison, here is my take on the issue, as it appeared in the Diocese of Edinburgh magazine.
The idea that the universe was created ‘from nothing’ by God has long been a Christian response to sceptics. Even though science has won much of the territory over which theology once reigned supreme, theologians have been able to rest secure knowing they have the exclusive rights to ‘nothing’. Quite simply, the laws of physics can’t explain ‘nothing’ because they’re a ‘something’ in themselves: they must be created ‘from nothing’. Hence, God comes into the picture, the ultimate ‘no-thing’, and the ultimate no-fail explanation for why there’s something rather than ‘nothing’.
This hasn’t always convinced everyone though. When Napoleon challenged Laplace for not mentioning God in his new book on astronomy in the early 1800’s, Laplace famously replied: ‘Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis.’ And a new book by cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has produced a remarkable new challenge to the theological idea of ‘nothing’. Richard Dawkins calls this book the ‘knockout blow’ against theology – ‘Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages.’
One of the strangest recent discoveries in physics is that of ‘dark energy’, a mysterious and invisible form of energy which (it is hypothesised) must fill all of space in order to explain why our universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. And there’s a lot of it: current estimates claim that dark energy makes up about 70% of the total energy of the universe. Quite simply, empty space (‘nothing’ in Krauss’s view) is bubbling-over with potentiality. Which is why, according to Krauss, not only is it not surprising that something came from nothing at the Big Bang, but something was always going to arise from nothing, sooner or later. No need for God at all then. Ever.
Krauss has not gone un-challenged. A scalding review in the New York Times by the philosopher David Albert reiterated the familiar point that the laws of physics had to come from somewhere. Krauss responded with poorly-considered invective against philosophy (‘moronic’, ‘hasn’t advanced in two thousand years’) which illustrated how not only dark energy, but passions too, are bubbling-over.
Krauss’s complaint is that the theologians and philosophers keep moving the goalposts. A century ago, he claims, no one would have blinked if he’d defined ‘nothing’ as purely empty space. But now that we know that empty space is full of creative energy, from which universes can burst into being, theologians insist it’s no longer ‘nothing’, but a ‘quantum vacuum’. And what if we go further, and define ‘nothing’ as the absence of space and time altogether? Again, this would have been uncontroversial once. But now we know that even space and time can spontaneously appear from the laws of physics, so the theological definition of ‘nothing’ has retreated yet further.
Krauss has a point. If the theological ‘nothing’ is too elusive, then it begins to look rather like a disguise for God, the ultimate untestable hypothesis which Krauss abhors. He’s forcing theologians to be more precise about ‘nothing’. But Krauss has his blind spots, not least of which is the practically-divine status he accords physical law, an idea which (ironically) derives from the pre-modern world of Greek philosophy. Krauss has metaphysical (i.e. untestable) beliefs every bit as much as the rest of us, but it’s not clear that he wants to own up to them. Tellingly, when Krauss was asked in an interview where the laws of physics came from, he basically shrugged his shoulders and explained that he isn’t interested in that kind of question because it isn’t open to science.
Forget ‘nothing’ then, what this particular skirmish in the phoney war between science and religion reveals is that it’s important to critics of religion like Krauss that the only beliefs worth having are those you can verify by testing. Or at least, that’s what the critics say. When pressed, they expose many of the same kinds of untestable presuppositions and vague hunches which have reassured humans since the dawn of time. Belief in ‘nothing’, whether you say it comes from physics or God, requires faith.
You don’t “belive” in nothing. You test it and look at the evidence. There was a Nobel prize for finding that you could make something out of nothing, more exactly phycisists made photons out of empty space. It’s proven. God is not, and requires faith above logic and reason. That includes a deistic God, but even more a theistic God which is based on myths, fairytales and events that simply are not true.
‘Nothing’ in theology doesn’t mean empty space. It’s the absence of everything – space, time, the laws of physics, everything created, etc etc. From that point of view, it’s not a concept open to science (unless science is able to pronounce even when it doesn’t exist).
As for the existence of God, many believers would say that their beliefs are based on logic and reason, as well as faith, and that their beliefs make sense of the evidence they experience. Admittedly, it’s not the kind of evidence science deals in, but’s no less ‘real’ to them for that.
Pingback: Dark energy and the meaning of creation from ‘nothing’ | Just Be V
I cannot seem to understand the need to justify or defend the idea of God, by the theologian. It is this physical need to define something that is abstract, creative and without definition that stirs the fire of the debate. When people seek to define how God “works” in objective terms, it seems to be undermined by real word discovery and understanding, which only really devalues accepted belief or current ideas about God. For the Christian and Theologian, in my opinion, the important questions do not pertain to how God created, only that we understand and believe that He did. We have to understand that what we believe and accept as a true and defined aspect of God’s “ability” or “nature” must be accepted only as a response to interacting with, having faith in, and accepting that what we come to understand about the functionality of how the universe works is just another lens from which to view creation. One isn’t more right than the other. In truth, both must be accepted by faith and the assumptions or hypothesis about reality are made based upon past beliefs, experiences, our own choices and the lens of how we personally choose to view or interpret that reality. What really matters is how what we choose guide our lives and the impact of the influence we have on the world around us.
Thanks, Damon, for a perceptive comment.
We can simply explain “nothing” from cosmological prospect by “Before the Big Bang”.
Another point regarding the “Science and Religion debate” is that each of them -comprehensibly – ask different questions, but the conflict emerges when you try to answer the other’s question using your methodology!
Where science is interested in “How”, Religion is concerned with “Who & Why”.
Decoding any of these riddles doesn’t necessarily help with the other issues.
“How the universe works?, How the laws of nature work?”
is a totally different issue from:
“Who wrote the laws of nature? And Why?”
Different prospective and different methodology and tools..
The real challenge is to establish a “Unifying” or at least “Bridging” model to deal with this hot debate.
With regards to why and who, being able to ask a question does that mean it has a meaning. For example, I could ask, what does the Sun is thinking about right now. But does asking such question means that there is an answer?
Why and who are inquisitive tools that denote the presence of “Agency” or being with a will. I argue that human acquired this sense of Agency due to social interaction.
For example, one can sit under an apple tree and if an apple falls, one would not think that “someone” had pulled the apple to the ground. But, we attribute intention mostly in our social intercourse. for that we use “who” and “why”.
To put rephrase, we invented who and why to live in social groups, then we generalised the use of those words beyond social interaction to extend to our physical world.
We invented “who and why” as we also invented “how it works”..
Human beings are curious creatures. Great philosophers are merely those curious kids with adults brain!
Anyway, we ask questions about things that affect us in a way or another.
” what does the Sun is thinking about right now” has nothing to do with us, we don’t see organizations or committees concerned with such issue,,
but “What will happen if something wrong occured to the sun”, that is the kind of questions men ask!
Why we are here, who wrote the laws of nature, are questions that their answers may affect us. Well, people who got different answers behave differently.
Human beings have always been asking these questions to know from where he came and to where he is going, and why?
Whether we invented it or not, it still needs an answer!
With regards to why and who, being able to ask a question, does that mean it has a meaning? For example, I could ask, what does the Sun is thinking about right now. But does asking such question means that there is an answer?
Why and who are inquisitive tools that denote the presence of “Agency” or being with a will. I argue that human acquired this sense of Agency due to social interaction.
For example, one can sit under an apple tree and if an apple falls, one would not think that “someone” had pulled the apple to the ground. But, we attribute intention mostly in our social intercourse. for that we use “who” and “why”.
To rephrase, we invented who and why to live in social groups, then we generalised the use of those words beyond social interaction to extend to our physical world.