Por Peter S. Williams
Un universo de alguien:
Contra Lawrence M. Krauss “Un universo de la nada”:
¿Por qué hay algo en lugar de nada? (Free Press, 2012)
– Peter S. Williams (MA, MPhil); Filósofo residente en el Damaris Trust; Profesor asistente de comunicación y visión del mundo en la escuela de periodismo y comunicación de Gimlekollen en Noruega.
Un universo de la nada: ¿por qué hay algo en lugar de nada? (Free Press, 2012), del cosmólogo Lawrence M. Krauss, ha sido alabado por otros ateos como A.C. Grayling, Sam Harris y Neil deGrasse Tyson. Según Richard Dawkins: “El título significa exactamente lo que dice. Y lo que dice es devastador”[1]. Estoy de acuerdo en que lo que dice este libro sobre el tema de por qué algo existe en lugar de nada (que no es mucho) es devastador, pero solo para la credibilidad intelectual de Krauss y sus partidarios. Krauss pasa la mayor parte de su libro redefiniendo “nada” en términos de algo cada vez más incorpóreo (del “espacio vacío” a las “leyes de la física”), como si esto justificara la conclusión de que la literal nada podría ser la causa del cosmos. Eso es como argumentar que, dado que es posible vivir con menos y menos alimentos cada día, debe ser posible vivir sin comida.
Krauss admite que “no simpatiza con la convicción de que la creación requiere un creador”[2] (una convicción que afirma es “en la base de todas las religiones del mundo”[3] — aunque esto sería una sorpresa para los budistas que no creen en Dios). Por supuesto, es cierto por definición que la creación requiere un creador (ser un creador es crear una creación, y ser una creación debe ser creada por un creador). Lo que Krauss quiere decir es que no simpatiza con la idea de que el cosmos sea una creación, porque eso implicaría un Creador: “No puedo probar que Dios no existe, pero preferiría vivir en un universo sin uno”[4]. Este tipo de confusión es sintomático de la actitud desdeñosa de Krauss hacia la filosofía, un “sesgo intelectual” confeso[5] que lo llevó a crear un libro con éxito de ventas plagado de confusiones, circunscrito por una argumentación circular y socavado por la auto contradicción.
Krauss reconoce que “nadie más que los fundamentalistas más ardientes sugerirían que todos y cada uno de los objetos [materiales] son… creados intencionalmente por una inteligencia divina…”[6] y que “muchos laicos y científicos se deleitan en nuestra capacidad para explicar cómo los copos de nieve y los arco iris pueden aparecer espontáneamente, sobre la base de leyes simples y elegantes de la física”[7]. Sin embargo, incluso dando el máximo debido a las capacidades causales inherentes del mundo natural, queda una pregunta abierta: ¿por qué existe el mundo natural? De hecho, como reconoce Krauss: “Uno puede preguntar, y muchos lo hacen, ¿De dónde vienen las leyes de la física?”[8]. Siguiendo esta línea de pensamiento, Krauss reconoce que “muchas personas reflexivas son conducidas a la aparente necesidad de la Primera Causa, como Platón, Tomás de Aquino o la moderna Iglesia Católica Romana podría decirlo, y por lo tanto suponer algún ser divino: un creador de todo lo que hay…”[9]. Como argumenta Dallas Willard: “El carácter dependiente de todos los estados físicos, junto con la completitud de la serie de dependencias subyacentes a la existencia de cualquier estado físico dado, lógicamente implica al menos un estado auto existente, y por lo tanto un estado no físico del ser”[10].
Existen, por supuesto, varias versiones independientes del argumento de “primera causa” o “cosmológico”. Lo más relevante en el contexto del libro de Krauss es claramente la forma leibnitziana del argumento, defendida por filósofos contemporáneos como Bruce R. Reichenbach[11], Richard Taylor[12] y William Lane Craig[13]. Este tipo de argumento se puede poner de la siguiente manera:
1) Todo lo que existe tiene una explicación de su existencia, ya sea en la necesidad de su propia naturaleza o en una causa externa.
2) El universo existe.
3) Por lo tanto, el universo tiene una explicación de su existencia.
4) Si el universo tiene una explicación de su existencia, esa explicación es Dios.
5) Por lo tanto, la explicación de la existencia del universo es Dios.
Dado que este es un argumento deductivo lógicamente válido, y dado que el universo obviamente existe, los no teístas deben negar las premisas 1 o 4 para evitar racionalmente la existencia de Dios. Sin embargo, muchos filósofos piensan que la Premisa 1, una versión del “principio de la razón suficiente”, es simplemente evidente por sí misma. Imagina encontrar una pelota translúcida en el suelo del bosque mientras camina. Naturalmente, te preguntarás cómo llegó a estar allí. Si un compañero de excursionismo dice: “Simplemente existe inexplicablemente. ¡No te preocupes por eso!”. No lo tomarías en serio. Supongamos que aumentamos el tamaño de la pelota para que sea tan grande como el planeta. Eso no elimina la necesidad de una explicación. Supongamos que era del tamaño del universo. El mismo problema. En cuanto a la premisa 4: “Si el universo tiene una explicación de su existencia, esa explicación es Dios”, esto es sinónimo con la afirmación atea estándar de que si Dios no existe, entonces el universo no tiene explicación de su existencia. La única alternativa al teísmo es afirmar que el universo tiene una explicación de su existencia en la necesidad de su propia naturaleza. Pero esto sería un paso muy radical (y no puedo pensar en ningún ateo contemporáneo que lo tome). Después de todo, es coherente imaginar un universo hecho a partir de una colección completamente diferente de quarks/campos/cuerdas que la colección que realmente existe; pero tal universo sería un universo diferente, entonces los universos claramente no existen necesariamente. De hecho, Krauss invoca la posibilidad de otros universos (“Los teóricos han estimado que tal vez haya 10500 universos tetra dimensionales consistentes posibles diferentes que podrían resultar de una única teoría de cuerdas de diez dimensiones”[14]) y esta posibilidad implica que los universos no existen por una necesidad de su propia naturaleza[15].
Supongamos que le pido que me preste un determinado libro, pero usted dice: “No tengo una copia en este momento, pero le pediré a mi amigo que me preste su copia y luego se la prestaré”. Supongamos que su amigo le dice lo mismo a usted, y así sucesivamente. Dos cosas están claras. Primero, si el proceso de pedir prestado el libro continúa ad infinitum, nunca tendré el libro. En segundo lugar, si obtengo el libro, el proceso que me llevó a conseguirlo no puede haber continuado ad infinitum. En alguna parte de la línea de solicitudes para tomar prestado el libro, alguien tenía el libro sin tener que pedirlo prestado. Asimismo, argumenta Richard Purtill, considera cualquier realidad contingente:
“los mismos dos principios se aplican. Si el proceso de todo para obtener su existencia de otra cosa llegara al infinito, entonces la cosa en cuestión nunca [tendría] existencia. Y si la cosa tiene… existencia, entonces el proceso no ha llegado al infinito. Había algo que tenía existencia sin tener que recibirlo de otra cosa…”[16].
Un ser necesario que explica toda la realidad física no puede en sí mismo ser una realidad física. Las únicas posibilidades restantes son un objeto abstracto o una mente inmaterial. Pero los objetos abstractos (incluso otorgando su existencia) son por definición causalmente impotentes. Por lo tanto, la explicación del universo físico es necesariamente una mente existente y trascendente.
Frente al argumento cosmológico, Krauss busca la vieja y cansada objeción en la parte superior de la guía neo-ateísta:
la declaración de una Primera Causa aún deja abierta la pregunta: “¿Quién creó al creador?” Después de todo, ¿cuál es la diferencia entre discutir a favor de un creador eternamente existente, versus un universo eternamente existente sin uno?[17]
En primer lugar, aun suponiendo que la deducción (no mera “declaración”) de una Primera Causa dejara abierta la pregunta secundaria de “¿quién creó al creador?”, esto no proporcionaría ninguna base sobre la cual objetar el argumento cosmológico. La suposición implícita de que una explicación no puede ser la mejor explicación de un conjunto de datos dados a menos que uno tenga disponible una explicación de la explicación (y así sucesivamente) claramente implica una regresión realmente infinita de explicaciones que nunca pueden ser satisfechas. La adhesión a una suposición explicativa tan regresiva haría imposible la ciencia; que es una razón por la cual el argumento de la causa principal es justificado al rechazar la noción de una regresión explicativa realmente infinita. Segundo, el argumento de la Primera Causa no deja abierta la pregunta secundaria de “¿quién creó al creador?”. Krauss simplemente plantea la pregunta en contra del concepto de una no creada Primera Causa, un ser que (a diferencia del universo físico) tiene una explicación de su existencia en la necesidad de su propia naturaleza.
Krauss continúa fusionando el contraste entre las realidades causadas, por un lado, y la Primera Causa, por otro lado, con un contraste vago entre un “universo eternamente existente” y un “creador eternamente existente” (¿significa que Krauss pretende abrazar la posibilidad de una regresión temporal realmente infinita para el cosmos? ¿Está él atento a los debates actuales sobre los diversos modelos de la relación de Dios con el tiempo? Uno no sospecha). Entonces encona la situación al notar que “una regresión infinita de alguna fuerza creadora que se engendra a sí misma… no nos acerca más a lo que da origen al universo”[18]. Por supuesto, un kluge de incoherencias no nos va a ayudar aquí; pero este kludge no guarda ningún parecido relevante con la noción de una Primera causa no causada que creó el universo un tiempo finito atrás.
Krauss objeta que “Definir la pregunta [de los orígenes] argumentando que el dinero se detiene con Dios puede parecer obviar el problema de la regresión infinita, pero aquí invoco mi mantra: El universo es como es, nos guste o no”[19]. Tenga en cuenta que “argumentar que la responsabilidad es de Dios” es, por definición, no una cuestión de simplemente “definir la cuestión” de los orígenes. Argumentar y definir no son actividades sinónimas. Tenga en cuenta también que el argumento de la causa principal hace “obviar el problema de la regresión infinita”. Nótese, finalmente, que el atractivo de Krauss a su mantra de que “el universo es como es, nos guste o no” es un intento desastrosamente equivocado de eludir la lógica del argumento cosmológico al lanzar supuestas aserciones científicas sobre la lógica.
De manera típica, neo-atea, Krauss tiene poco tiempo para la filosofía[20]. Krauss incluso afirma que: “El único conocimiento que tenemos es de experimentos… el único conocimiento que tenemos sobre el mundo es empírico”[21]. Como reflexiona el filósofo ateo de la ciencia Massimo Pigliucci:
No sé qué les pasa a los físicos estos días. Solía ser que eran un grupo intelectualmente sofisticado, con gente como Einstein y Bohr haciendo no solo investigación científica brillante, sino también interesada, respetuosa y versada en otras ramas del conocimiento, particularmente la filosofía. En estos días, es mucho más probable encontrar físicos como Steven Weinberg o Stephen Hawking, que alegremente rechazan la filosofía por las razones equivocadas, y obviamente por una combinación de profunda ignorancia y soberbia (los dos a menudo van juntos, como yo estoy seguro de que Platón felizmente lo señalaría). El más reciente así es Lawrence Krauss, de la Universidad Estatal de Arizona[22].
La falta de respeto de Krauss por la filosofía subyace y por lo tanto socava todo su proyecto. Por ejemplo, argumenta que, si bien la cuestión de los orígenes últimos “generalmente se enmarca como una cuestión filosófica o religiosa, es ante todo una pregunta sobre el mundo natural, y por lo tanto el lugar apropiado para intentar resolverlo, ante todo, es con la ciencia”[23]. Pero esto es para combinar todas las preguntas sobre el mundo natural con las preguntas científicas sobre el mundo natural. De hecho, puede haber preguntas filosóficas sobre el mundo natural, y la pregunta sobre los orígenes últimos es una de ellas. Tratar de responder a esta pregunta filosófica mientras se deja de lado la filosofía conduce a resultados predecibles.
Por ejemplo, y volviendo al mantra de Krauss, por supuesto el universo “es como es, nos guste o no”. Sin embargo, una de las formas en que el universo es (“nos guste o no”) que se ajusta a las leyes básicas de la lógica. Uno podría desear un círculo cuadrado, uno podría preferir que 1+1 sea igual a 7, pero sabemos que el universo no lo va a complacer porque estos conceptos son auto contradictorios. De hecho, uno no puede negar la proposición de que “la realidad se ajusta a las leyes básicas de la lógica” sin depender de la conformidad de la realidad con las leyes básicas de la lógica en el proceso mismo de emitir la propia negación. Ciertamente, no se puede basar tal negación en la afirmación de que “El universo es como es, nos guste o no”; esta afirmación es en sí misma simplemente una sustitución de la ley lógica del medio excluido. Argumentar contra la proposición de que la realidad es lógicamente coherente apelando a la afirmación lógicamente coherente de que “El universo es como es, nos guste o no” es lógicamente incoherente[24]
Krauss opina que “sin ciencia, cualquier definición es solo palabras”[25]. Después de lamentar brevemente el destino de nuestros antepasados tratando de hablar antes de la invención de la ciencia, uno podría señalar que Krauss ha reinventado la rueda chueca del positivismo lógico (completa con su extinta teoría verificacionista del significado lingüístico) y su afirmación de que “sin ciencia”, cualquier definición es solo palabras que carecen de sus estructuras. Tal incoherencia lógica es una entre muchas razones por las cuales, como Bruce R. Reichenbach comentó en 1972: “La era ha pasado cuando todas las afirmaciones o argumentos metafísicos simplemente pueden descartarse como tontos o sin sentido, ya que no cumplen un criterio preestablecido de verificabilidad”[26]
Krauss ha sido visto en el abrazo del verificacionismo antes. Randy Everist observa que “el debate [de marzo de 2011] entre Lawrence Krauss y William Lane Craig puso de manifiesto algunas de las afirmaciones de cientificismo en la Nueva comunidad atea. En cierto modo, recuerda mucho al positivismo lógico con A.J. Ayer y los antiguos ateos de principios y mediados del siglo XX”[27]. Durante el tiempo de “Pregunta y respuesta”, Krauss afirmó que “la ciencia hace lo que hace, y determina el sinsentido de los sentidos mediante la prueba“[28]. Un asombrado Craig respondió que Krauss:
parece sostener una epistemología que dice que solo debemos creer en lo que puede ser probado científicamente, y … que en sí mismo es una posición auto contradictoria, porque no se puede demostrar científicamente que solo se debe creer en lo que se puede demostrar científicamente. Entonces, cuando dice que “distingue el sentido del sinsentido”, es el verificacionismo de la vieja línea, ¿no es así?, y el positivismo, que salió con los años 30 y 40. Es una posición contraproducente[29].
Como Craig comentó después: “Todavía estoy asombrado… cuando entro en un debate con alguien como Lawrence Krauss, sobre cómo la epistemología del verificacionismo antiguo y el positivismo lógico todavía arroja su larga sombra sobre la cultura occidental”[30]
En la tradición verificacionista, Krauss se queja de que “la religión y la teología… enturbian las aguas… al centrarse en cuestiones de la nada sin proporcionar ninguna definición del término basada en evidencia empírica”[31] — ¡pero, por supuesto, Krauss no puede proporcionar ninguna definición de este criterio de significado basado en evidencia empírica! Tampoco el criterio de significado de Krauss es tautológicamente verdadero (en marcado contraste con el principio tautológico de que “de la nada, nada viene”, a lo que Krauss se opone). Por lo tanto, Krauss se enorgullece de su incapacidad de prestar atención a la filosofía cuando se trata de definir los términos, y este fracaso convierte a la gran mayoría de Un universo de la nada en una búsqueda inútil en la que gasta todas menos 4 páginas (ver páginas 174-178) que abordan preguntas además de la pregunta fundamental de si uno puede obtener un universo de la nada. Como se lamenta el científico ateo Jerry Coyne: “Gran parte del libro era no sobre el origen del universo, pero se ocupó de otros asuntos, como la energía oscura y similares, que ya se habían cubierto en otras obras populares sobre física. De hecho, gran parte del libro de Krauss se sintió como tácticas engañosas”[32]. Esta objeción se desliza fuera de Krauss como el agua en la espalda de un pato:
Nada molesta más a los filósofos y teólogos que están en desacuerdo conmigo que la idea de que yo, como científico, no entiendo realmente “nada”. (Estoy tentado de replicar aquí que los teólogos son expertos en nada). “Nada”, insisten, no es cualquiera de las cosas que discuto. Nada es “no ser”, en un sentido vago y mal definido… Pero… seguramente “nada” es tan físico como “algo”, especialmente si debe definirse como la “ausencia de algo”. Entonces nos corresponde comprender la naturaleza física de estas dos cantidades. Y sin ciencia, cualquier definición es solo palabras[33]
Entrevistado por el compañero neo-ateísta Sam Harris, Krauss asevera vergonzosamente:
el famoso reclamo, “de la nada, nada viene” [es] espurio [porque] la ciencia ha hecho irrelevante el debate de algo de la nada. Ha cambiado por completo nuestra concepción de las palabras “algo” y “nada”… “algo” y “nada” son conceptos físicos y, por lo tanto, son propiamente el dominio de la ciencia, no de la teología o la filosofía[34]
Por desgracia para Krauss, la famosa afirmación de que “de la nada, nada viene” (una reclamación que se remonta a Parménides de Elea en el siglo 5 antes de Cristo) es claramente cierto por definición. Para existir o para ser es ser una cosa u otra, tener una o más propiedades. “Nada”, que es un término de negación universal, es “nada”, es decir, no es algo de ningún tipo. “Nada” no tiene ninguna propiedad (ya que no hay nada allí para tener alguna propiedad). Por definición, entonces, “nada” no tiene ninguna propiedad capaz de hacer nada – ciertamente de no crear algo. Por lo tanto, nada puede “salir de” (es decir, ser causado por) nada. Contra Krauss, no hay nada “vago y mal definido” sobre esto (y ni siquiera el criterio vergonzante y auto contradictorio del significado va a beneficiar a Krauss en este momento).
Además, si Krauss quiere decir que niega el principio evidente de razón suficiente y afirma que las cosas pueden simplemente existir o aparecer sin causa o explicación de su existencia, entonces ha abandonado la metafísica seria (de hecho, rechaza explícitamente la metafísica en el nombre del cientifismo). En tal teoría no hay literalmente ninguna razón por la cual el universo existe en lugar de solo un juego de té (y, al contrario de la observación empírica, no hay razón por la cual los juegos de té no fluctúen y desaparezcan al azar sin ningún motivo).
En cuanto a la afirmación de Krauss de que ciertamente “nada” es tan físico como “algo” — por un lado, esto es tan drásticamente idiosincrásico que uno apenas sabe por dónde empezar; mientras que, por otro lado, esta afirmación revela por qué Un universo de la nada es una verdadera escuela de pistas falsas. Enfrentado con la cuestión filosófica de los orígenes últimos, Krauss simplemente cambia el tema para discutir la cuestión científica de cómo una cosa natural (por ejemplo, el Big Bang) podría haber sido causada por alguna otra cosa natural (por ejemplo, un multiverso). Krauss puede quejarse de que “la religión y la teología… enturbia las aguas… centrándose en cuestiones de la nada sin proporcionar ninguna definición del término basado en evidencia empírica”[35] — pero cualquier definición de nada “basada en evidencia empírica” sería una definición de “nada” que no tiene nada que ver con las cuestiones filosóficas de por qué hay algo más que nada, o si la existencia de un ámbito empírico implica o no se explica mejor por un orden de realidad no empírica (metafísico). Por lo tanto, la página 149 de Un Universo de la Nada contiene la franca admisión de que el tipo de “nada” que Krauss ha estado discutiendo hasta ahora es:
la versión más simple de nada, es decir, el espacio vacío. Por el momento, asumiré que el espacio existe, sin nada en absoluto, y que las leyes de la física también existen. Una vez más, me doy cuenta de que en las versiones revisadas de la nada que aquellos que desean redefinir continuamente la palabra para que ninguna definición científica sea práctica, esta versión de la nada no es una razón seria. Sin embargo, sospecho que, en los tiempos de Platón y Tomás de Aquino, cuando reflexionaron sobre por qué había algo en lugar de nada, el espacio vacío sin nada era probablemente una buena aproximación de lo que estaban pensando[36]
Por supuesto, su Krauss que está redefiniendo los términos aquí (además, la única manera en que “algo” y “nada” podrían ser “conceptos físicos”, como afirma Krauss, es sobre la asunción de una metafísica fisicalista, una suposición que hace que una petición de principio al argumento de Krauss en contra de la necesidad por la pregunta del Creador). En lo que los filósofos llaman “lenguaje ordinario”, la nevera del estudiante pobre puede estar “llena de nada”, y no contiene “nada más que espacio vacío”; pero es extremadamente ingenuo esperar que el debate metafísico preciso se desarrolle completamente en “lenguaje ordinario”. Como escribe William E. Caroll: “El deseo de separar las ciencias naturales de la supuesta contaminación de los” juegos de palabras “de la filosofía y la teología no es nuevo; ahora, como siempre, revela un juicio filosófico empobrecido”[37]
Cada disciplina (incluida la ciencia) tiene su propia terminología técnica con su propia historia de uso que debe ser entendida por cualquiera que desee ser parte de la conversación en curso dentro de esa disciplina. La antipatía de Krauss hacia la filosofía significa que comete errores en el debate metafísico sobre los orígenes como un laico mal preparado. Krauss puede “sospechar que, en tiempos de Platón y de Aquino, cuando reflexionaban sobre por qué había algo en lugar de nada, el espacio vacío sin nada era probablemente una buena aproximación de lo que estaban pensando”[38]. Pero estas sospechas están informadas por su propio prejuicio antifilosófico más que por los hechos históricos. Aristóteles ingeniosamente no definió nada como “en qué piensan las rocas”[39]. El punto es, por supuesto, que las rocas no piensan en nada en lo absoluto. Robert J. Spitzer observa que:
Parménides y Platón… usan el término “nada” para significar “nada” (es decir, “aquello que no existe”). No se debe pensar que nada es un vacío o un hueco (que es dimensional y orientable, donde puedes tener más o menos espacio); y ciertamente no es una ley física. En la medida en que las leyes de la física tienen efectos físicos reales, deben considerarse como algo físico[40]
Paul Copan informa:
Agustín argumentó que dado que solo Dios es el Ser, quiso hacer existir lo que antes no existía. Entonces él no es un simple modelador de la materia primordial eterna y sin forma: ” No trabajaste como lo hace un artesano humano, haciendo una cosa de otra cosa como su mente lo dirige… Tu Palabra sola creó [el cielo y la tierra]”[41]
Del mismo modo, cuando Tomás de Aquino escribe acerca de “nada” en su argumento de la “tercera vía”, ciertamente parece tener en mente el concepto tradicional de la nada absoluta:
lo que no existe empieza a existir solamente a través de algo que ya existe. Por lo tanto, si en algún momento no existiera nada, hubiera sido imposible que algo hubiera comenzado a existir; y así ahora nada existiría, lo cual es absurdo[42]
De hecho, el propio Krauss se refiere en otro lugar a la definición ontológica clásica de nada como “la ausencia de algo”…[43] Krauss admite en la página 152 de Un universo de la nada que “sería falso proponer que el espacio vacío dotado de energía, que impulsa la inflación, realmente no sea nada“[44]. En la página 172, Krauss reconoce: “Todos los ejemplos que he proporcionado hasta ahora implican la creación de algo de lo que uno debería estar tentado a considerar como nada, pero las reglas para esa creación, es decir, las leyes de la física, fueron preestablecidas. ¿De dónde vienen las reglas?”[45]. Así Stephen Hawking pregunta:
Incluso si solo hay una teoría unificada posible, es solo un conjunto de reglas y ecuaciones. ¿Qué es lo que inhala fuego en las ecuaciones y crea un universo para describir? El enfoque habitual de la ciencia de construir un modelo matemático no puede responder a las preguntas de por qué debería haber un universo para describir el modelo. ¿Por qué el universo se toma la molestia de existir?[46]
La pregunta de Hawking — evitada por Krauss (ver páginas 142 y 172-174) — deja de lado la cuestión de qué ontología se puede atribuir a las leyes físicas en la supuesta ausencia de realidad física para describirlas o alguna mente que las conciba. Como dice el ateo Peter Atkins: “Debes darte cuenta de que las leyes físicas, que son resúmenes de la conducta observada, comienzan a existir a medida que el universo llega a la existencia…”[47]
En la página 174 de Universo de la nada, Krauss todavía no se ha acercado a la pregunta del millón de dólares: “Me he centrado en la creación de algo a partir de un espacio vacío preexistente o en la creación de espacio vacío sin espacio alguno… Tengo sin embargo, no abordado, directamente… lo que algunos pueden ver como la cuestión de la Primera Causa[48]. Ninguno de los venerables filósofos mencionados por Krauss habría confundido ninguna de sus especulaciones sobre el cosmos que surge de una realidad naturalista preexistente u otra, con lo que Leibniz llamó “la primera pregunta” de “por qué existe algo más que nada”. Tampoco Sam Harris, quien en el curso de una entrevista con Krauss comentó:
Usted ha descrito tres gradaciones de la nada: el espacio vacío, la ausencia de espacio y la ausencia de leyes físicas. Me parece que esta última condición -la ausencia de leyes que pudieran haber causado o restringido el surgimiento de la materia y el espacio –tiempo– es realmente un caso de “nada” en el sentido más estricto. Me parece genuinamente incomprensible que cualquier cosa (leyes, energía, etc.) pueda brotar de ella[49]
David Albert, un filósofo ateo de la física de la Universidad de Columbia, es devastador en su reseña de Un universo de la nada:
Las leyes fundamentales de la naturaleza… no tienen ninguna relación con las cuestiones de dónde provienen las cosas elementales, o de por qué el mundo debería haber consistido en las cosas elementales particulares que hace, como en contra de algo más, o a nada en absoluto. Las leyes físicas fundamentales de las que Krauss habla en Un universo de la nada – las leyes de las teorías cuánticas de campo relativistas – no son una excepción a esto. La… materia física elemental del mundo, de acuerdo con las presentaciones estándar de las teorías cuánticas de campo relativistas, consiste (como era de esperar) en campos cuánticos relativistas. Y las leyes fundamentales de esta teoría… no tienen nada que decir sobre el tema de dónde provienen esos campos, o de por qué el mundo debería haber consistido en los tipos particulares de campos que hace, o de por qué debería haber consistido en campos, o de por qué debería haber habido un mundo en primer lugar. Y punto. Caso cerrado. Fin de la historia… Krauss parece estar pensando que estos estados de vacío equivalen a la versión teórica de campo cuántico relativista de no ser nada físico en absoluto. Y tiene un argumento, o cree que lo hace, de que las leyes de las teorías cuánticas de campo relativistas implican que los estados de vacío son inestables. Y eso, en pocas palabras, es la cuenta que él propone de por qué debería haber algo en lugar de nada. Pero eso no está bien. Los estados de vacío teórico de campos cuánticos relativistas, no menos que jirafas o refrigeradores o sistemas solares, son arreglos particulares de material físico elemental. El verdadero equivalente teórico-campo-cuantitativo relativista de que no haya ningún material físico en absoluto no es esta o esa disposición particular de los campos – ¡lo que es (obviamente, e ineluctablemente, y por el contrario) es la simple ausencia de los campos! El hecho de que algunos arreglos de campos correspondan a la existencia de partículas y otros no, no es más misterioso que el hecho de que algunos de los posibles arreglos de mis dedos correspondan a la existencia de un puño y algunos no. Y el hecho de que las partículas pueden aparecer y desaparecer, con el tiempo, a medida que esos campos se reordenan, no es más misterioso que el hecho de que los puños puedan aparecer y desaparecer con el tiempo a medida que mis dedos se reordenen. Y ninguno de estos golpeteos… asciende a algo ni remotamente en el vecindario de una creación de la nada[50]
En una demostración reveladora de arrogancia intelectual, Krauss respondió públicamente a la crítica de Albert diciendo que “él es un filósofo, no un físico, así que lo descarté”[51] (de hecho, mientras David Albert es el Profesor Frederick E. Woodbridge de Filosofía en la Universidad de Columbia, tiene un doctorado en Física Teórica de la Universidad Rockefeller).
Cuando finalmente Krauss dirige su atención a la pregunta sobre el título de su libro, reconoce “dos posibilidades”. O bien… algún ser divino que no esté sujeto a las leyes o surgen por algún mecanismo menos sobrenatural”[52]. Por un lado, cualquier “mecanismo” naturalista debe involucrar a alguna ley física u otra (y, por lo tanto, uno pensaría, alguna realidad física descrita por esa ley), que proporciona nada más que una nueva forma de plantear la cuestión fundamental de los orígenes: “¿Por qué existe esta ley?”. Por otro lado, si el “mecanismo” que Krauss tiene en mente no es naturalista, entonces Krauss se confiesa que solo le queda una opción: Un universo de alguien .En los cuernos de este dilema, la ventanilla de emergencia de Krauss es un intento auto contradictorio de utilizar la autoridad de la ciencia para negar la autoridad de la lógica:
La “regla” metafísica, que se mantiene como una convicción férrea por aquellos con quienes he debatido el tema de la creación, es decir que “de la nada nada viene” no tiene fundamento en la ciencia[53]
De hecho, ninguna de las leyes de la lógica (todas las cuales deben preponerse bajo el dolor de la incoherencia) tiene un “fundamento en la ciencia”; pero ¡¿y qué?! “Argumentando que es evidente por sí mismo, inquebrantable e inexpugnable [que “de la nada, nada viene”], alega Krauss, representa “una falta de voluntad para reconocer el simple hecho de que la naturaleza puede ser más inteligente que los filósofos o los teólogos”[54]. ¡De ningún modo! Más bien, representa una voluntad de reconocer el simple hecho de que la lógica es innegable y que las proposiciones incoherentes son necesariamente falsas. Como dice William Lane Craig: “Si la alternativa al teísmo es negar la lógica, bueno, me parece que el no teísta está realmente en graves problemas allí; nunca más podrán decir que los teístas son irracionales por creer lo que creemos”[55]
Aferrándose a una última gota lógica (nótese que se involucra en el doble estándar de responsabilizar a los teístas de la lógica y exime al ateísmo del mismo deber), Krauss hace una objeción que solo sirve para revelar su incapacidad para comprender lo que significa el doctrina de la creación “ex nihilo”:
Aquellos que argumentan que de la nada nada viene parecen perfectamente satisfechos con la noción quijotesca de que de alguna manera Dios puede evitar esto. Pero una vez más, si uno requiere que la noción de verdadera nada requiera ni siquiera el potencial para la existencia, entonces seguramente Dios no puede obrar sus maravillas, porque si Él causa existencia de la no existencia, debe haber existido el potencial para la existencia[56]
Aquellos que argumentan que “de la nada nada viene” no están contentos con la noción incoherente de que “Dios puede evitar esto”. Mientras que la verdadera nada, por supuesto, requiere ni siquiera el potencial para existir (debido a que cualquier potencial debe basarse en algo real), los teístas no creen que Dios creando el universo es un ejemplo de algo que viene de la nada, ya que por supuesto creen que Dios existe (necesariamente) y que el potencial para la existencia de todo fuera de Dios existe en Dios.
Krauss obviamente está trabajando bajo la falsa impresión de que la creación ex nihilo significa “creación de la nada”, como si “nada” fuera una especie de algo usado de algún modo por un Dios inexistente en la creación del cosmos. Sin embargo, para crear ex nihilo es, por definición, no una cuestión de reorganizar cosas preexistentes, y ciertamente no de reordenar una “nada” preexistente, sino más bien de organizar para que hayan cosas de algún tipo u otro (fuera de Dios) en primer lugar. En otras palabras, la doctrina de la creación ex nihilo distingue entre crear mediante la reorganización de “cosas” preexistentes (por ejemplo, el tipo de creación concebida por Platón para su “Demiurgo”) y crear una nueva forma de realidad (como un universo) sin usar “cosas preexistentes” (por ejemplo, Génesis 1:1)[57]. Los filósofos llaman al segundo tipo de creación “creatio ex nihilo“, que significa “creación [por un creador], no de elementos preexistentes”. La creencia en un ser necesariamente existente que fundamenta el potencial para la existencia de cosas contingentes y que actualiza ese potencial mediante un acto de omnipotencia libremente elegido es una respuesta lógicamente coherente a la pregunta de por qué existe el universo físico. Además, esta respuesta está respaldada por el argumento cosmológico.
Frente a la respuesta lógicamente coherente respaldada por el argumento cosmológico de Leibniz, a Krauss le gustaría cambiar el tema: “Lo que es realmente útil no es reflexionar sobre esta cuestión…”[58]. Como resultado, produce un libro que está abrumadoramente dedicado a preguntas además del de la portada. El prejuicio antifilosófico de Krauss lo lleva a adoptar una posición verificacionalista que los filósofos abandonaron hace tiempo como auto contradictoria y a jugar con el rechazo de la cuestión fundamental de los orígenes como sin sentido. A pesar de esto, Krauss gasta un puñado de páginas intentando explicar por qué hay algo en lugar de nada. El intento lo lleva a plantear la pregunta contra el teísmo, a rechazar la lógica en nombre de la ciencia y a adoptar un doble estándar. Este kludge de falacias convenció a Richard Dawkins de poner su nombre a la afirmación incoherente de que “la nada es inestable: algo estaba casi obligado a surgir de ella”[59], que solo muestra cuán intelectualmente inestables son los fundamentos del neo-ateísmo.
Recursos recomendados
(Video) William Lane Craig, ‘Why Does Anything at All Exist?’ (¿Por qué existe algo?) www.reasonablefaith.org/media/why-does-anything-at-all-exist-nflc-north-carolina
(Video) William Lane Craig, ‘Who Designed The Designer?’ (¿Quién diseñó el diseñador?) www.reasonablefaith.org/media/who-designed-the-designer
(Video) William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence M. Krauss, ‘Is There Evidence For God?’ (¿Hay evidencia para Dios?) www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-krauss-north-carolina-state-university
(Audio) Justin Brierley, ” ‘Unbelievable: A Universe From Nothing?’ (Increíble : ¿Un universo de la nada?)Lawrence Krauss vs. Rodney Holder ‘ www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid =% 7B02949395-E52F-4784-BF29-3A3138738B0B% 7D
(Audio) William Lane Craig, ‘A Universe From Nothing’ (Un universo de la nada) www.reasonablefaith.org/a-universe-from-nothing
(Audio) William Lane Craig, ‘Lawrence Krauss On Creation Out Of Nothing’ (En la creación de la nada) www.reasonablefaith.org/lawrence-krauss-on-creation-out-of-nothing
David Albert, ‘On the Origin of Everything’ (Sobre el origen de todo) www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
Ross Anderson, ‘Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?’ The Atlantic (¿La física hizo que la filosofía y la religión fueran obsoletas? El Atlántico) www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/
William E. Caroll, ‘The Science of Nothing’ (La ciencia de la nada) www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1259/the_science_of_nothing.aspx
Paul Copan, ‘Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of Gerhard May’s Proposal’ (¿Es Creatio Ex Nihilo una invención posbíblica?Un examen de la propuesta de Gerhard May) www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
William Lane Craig, ‘Atheist Physicist’s Repudiation of Logic and Probability Theory’ (Repudio a la teoría lógica y de probabilidad del físico ateo) www.reasonablefaith.org/atheistic-physicists-repudiation-of-logic-and-probability-theory
Sam Harris, ‘Everything and Nothing: An Interview with Lawrence M. Krauss’ (Todo y nada: una entrevista con Lawrence M. Krauss) http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644472-everything-and-nothing-an-interview-with-lawrence-krauss
John Horgan, ‘Science Will Never Explain Why There’s Something Rather Than Nothing’ Scientific American (April 23rd, 2012) (La ciencia nunca le explicará por qué hay algo en lugar de nada, Scientific American [23 de abril de 2012]) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/23/science-will-never- explicar por qué hay algo más que nada
Massimo Pigliucci, ‘Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex’ (Lawrence Krauss: otro físico con un complejo antifilosofía ) http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html
Bruce R. Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument : A Reassessment (El argumento cosmológico: una reevaluación) (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1972)
Richard Taylor, ‘The Cosmological Argument: A Defence’ (El argumento cosmológico: una defensa) http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/taylor.pdf
Peter S. Williams, ‘Who Made God?’ (¿Quién hizo Dios?) www.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/introductory/who-made-god.htm
Peter S. Williams, ‘Cambridge Union Debate (with analysis): This House Believes God Is Not A Delusion’ (Debate de Cambridge Union (con análisis): esta casa cree que Dios no es una ilusión) www.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/advanced/cambridge-union-society-debate-an-analysis .htm
Notas
[1] Richard Dawkins, “Epílogo”, Un universo de la nada, p. 191.
[2] Lawrence M. Krauss, Un universo de la nada: ¿por qué hay algo en lugar de nada? (London: Free Pres, 2012), p. xi.
[3] ibid.
[4] Lawrence M. Krauss, “Lawrence M. Krauss, on A Universe From Nothing”, Time Out , Sydney www.au.timeout.com/sydney/aroundtown/features/10453/lawrence-m.-krauss-on- a-universo-de-nada
[5] Lawrence Krauss en Sam Harris, ‘Everything and Nothing: An Interview with Lawrence M. Krauss’ (Todo y nada: una entrevista con Lawrence M. Krauss) http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644472-everything-and-nothing-an-interview-with-lawrence-krauss
[6] Krauss, “A Universe From Nothing” (Un universo de la nada), op cit.
[7] ibid.
[8] ibid.
[9] ibid, p. xii.
[10] Dallas Willard, ‘The Three-Stage Argument for the Existence of God’ in Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology (El argumento de tres etapas para la existencia de Dios en las perspectivas contemporáneas sobre la epistemología religiosa) (ed.Douglas Geivett y Brendan Sweetman; Oxford University Press, 1992).
[11] cf. Bruce R. Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment(El argumento cosmológico: una reevaluación) (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1972).
[12] cf. Richard Taylor, ‘The Cosmological Argument: A Defence’ (El argumento cosmológico: una defensa) http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/taylor.pdf
[13] cf. William Lane Craig, ‘Why Does Anything at All Exist?’ (¿Por qué existe algo?) www.reasonablefaith.org/media/why-does-anything-at-all-exist-nflc-north-carolina
[14] Krauss, op cit, p. 134.
[15] Calum Miller makes the same point in the context of his debate with Peter Atkins, cf. (Calum Miller hace el mismo punto en el contexto de su debate con Peter Atkins, cf.) http://dovetheology.com/apologetics/atkins/
[16] Richard Purtill citado por Charles Taliaferro, Contemporary Philosophy of Religion (Filosofía contemporánea de la religión) (Blackwells, 2001), p. 358-359.
[17] Krauss, op cit.
[18] ibid.
[19] ibid.
[20] cf. Peter Atkins vs. William Lane Craig, ‘Does God Exist?’ (¿Existe Dios?) www.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/advanced/does-god-exist-bill-craig-debates-peter-atkins.htm & Kari Enqvist vs. William Lane Craig, ‘Can the Universe Exist Without God?’ (¿Puede el Universo existir sin Dios?)www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-enqvist-helsinki
[21] Lawrence M. Krauss, ‘Unbelievable: A Universe From Nothing? (Increíble: ¿un universo de la nada?)Lawrence Krauss vs. Rodney Holder’ www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid =% 7B02949395-E52F-4784-BF29-3A3138738B0B% 7D
[22] Massimo Pigliucci, “Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex (otro físico con una compleja antifilosofía)” http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html
[23] Krauss, op cit, xiii.
[24] cf. William Lane Craig, ‘Atheist Physicist’s Repudiation of Logic and Probability Theory’ (Repudio a la teoría lógica y de probabilidad del físico ateo) www.reasonablefaith.org/atheistic-physicists-repudiation-of-logic-and-probability-theory
[25] Krauss, op cit, xiv.
[26] Bruce R. Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment (El argumento cosmológico: una reevaluación) (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1972), p. ix.
[27] Randy Everist, ‘Can Science Explain Everything?’ (¿Puede la ciencia explicar todo?) http://randyeverist.blogspot.com/2011/04/can-science-explain-everything.html
[28] Lawrence Krauss, debate con William Lane Craig 2011, cf. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/audio-and-video-from-the-debate-between-william-lane-craig-and-lawrence-krauss/
[29] ibid.
[30] William Lane Craig, Podcast sobre la Fe Razonable, 12 de junio de 2011.
[31] ibid, xvi.
[32] Jerry Coyne, ‘David Alberts pans Lawrence Krauss’ New Book’ (David Alberts presenta el nuevo libro de Lawrence Krauss) http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/david-albert-pans-lawrence-krausss-new-book/
[33] Krauss, op cit, xiii-xiv.
[34] Krauss en Harris, ‘Everything and Nothing: An Interview with Lawrence M. Krauss’ (Todo y nada: una entrevista con Lawrence M. Krauss), op cit.
[35] Krauss, Un universo de la nada, op cit, xvi.
[36] ibid, p. 149.
[37] Caroll, op cit.
[38] Krauss, op cit.
[39] Aristóteles, citado por Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God (¿Puede el hombre vivir sin Dios?) (Word, 1994), p. 131.
[40] Robert J. Spitzer, ‘The curious metaphysics of Dr Stephen Hawking’ (La curiosa metafísica del Dr. Stephen Hawking) www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0119.htm
[41] Paul Copan, ‘Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of Gerhard May’s Proposal’ (¿Es Creatio Ex Nihilo una invención post-bíblica? Un examen de la propuesta de Gerhard May) www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
[42] Thomas Aquinas, citado por Robert E. Maydole, The Third Ways Modalized (Las Terceras Formas Modalizadas) www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliMayd.htm
[43] Lawrence M. Krauss, ‘The Consolation of Philosophy’ (La consolación de la filosofía) www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id = the-consolation-of-philos & page = 3
[44] Krauss, A Universe From Nothing (Un universo de la nada , op cit, p. 152.
[45] ibid, p. 172.
[46] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Una breve historia del tiempo) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
[47] Peter Atkins, ‘Does God Exist?’ (¿Existe Dios?)http://youtu.be/NhIr9OQBst0
[48] Krauss, op cit, p. 174.
[49] Harris, An Interview with Lawrence M. Krauss’ (Todo y nada: una entrevista con Lawrence M. Krauss), op cit.
[50] David Albert, ‘On the Origin of Everything’ (Sobre el origen de todo) www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
[51] Lawrence Krauss en Justin Brierley, ‘Unbelievable: A Universe From Nothing? (Increíble: ¿Un universo de la nada?)Lawrence Krauss vs. Rodney Holder’ www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid =% 7B02949395-E52F-4784-BF29-3A3138738B0B% 7D
[52] Krauss, A Universe From Nothing (Un universo de la nada), op cit, p. 172.
[53] ibid, p. 174.
[54] ibid.
[55] William Lane Craig, ‘Can the Universe Exist Without God?’ (¿Puede el Universo existir sin Dios?)www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-enqvist-helsinki
[56] Krauss, op cit, p. 174.
[57] cf. Paul Copan, ‘Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of Gerhard May’s Proposal’ (¿Es Creatio Ex Nihilo una invención posbíblica? Un examen de la propuesta de Gerhard May) www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
[58] Krauss, op cit, p. 178.
[59] Dawkins, ‘Afterword’, ibid, p. 189.
Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2HyFpgr
Traducido y editado por María Andreina Cerrada
Why Don’t Brilliant Scientists Like Stephen Hawking Believe in God?
2. Does God Exist?, Apologetics for Parentsby Natasha Crain
The famous physicist, cosmologist, and author Stephen Hawking died this week. He was widely known as one of the most brilliant scientists of our time.
He was also widely known as an atheist.
In fact, many of the most famous scientists today are atheists.
This point has not escaped the attention of skeptics who often promote the idea that science and God are in conflict. As supporting evidence of that supposed conflict, skeptics often claim that virtually no scientists believe in God. More specifically, they back up their claim by citing a 1998 research study that showed 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences (an elite scientific organization in the United States) don’t believe in God. That finding caught the media’s attention, and it’s been continually quoted ever since as a known fact about the relationship of religious belief and scientific professions.
For example, atheist neuroscientist and popular author Sam Harris has written:
My purpose in this post isn’t to dissect Stephen Hawking’s personal religious beliefs. I only refer to him here because his death has once again raised this subject in popular discussion. My purpose is also not to dissect whether God and science conflict (I address this in multiple chapters of Talking with Your Kids about God). My purpose instead is to look at the question of whether it’s true that scientists don’t believe in God and the implications of the answer.
While we know that truth isn’t determined by vote, statistics get people’s attention—and young people especially trust “expert opinion”—so it’s well worth our time as parents to explore this question. When your kids ask why scientists don’t believe in God (because they’ve heard that’s a foregone conclusion), this is the discussion you need to have.
What Do Scientists Believe about God?
This is the subject of Chapter 12 in Talking with Your Kids about God. In that chapter, I explain in detail the five major research studies that have been conducted on this question (with all corresponding references). I’ll briefly summarize the findings here:
It is an assumption of much scholarly work that the religious beliefs of scientists are a function of their commitment to science. The findings presented here show that indeed academics in the natural and social sciences at elite research universities are less religious than many of those in the general public, at least according to traditional indicators of religiosity. Assuming, however, that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religious commitments is untenable when we take into account the differential selection of scientists from certain religious backgrounds. Our results indicate that people from certain backgrounds (the non-religious, for example) disproportionately self-select into scientific professions.
Let’s now consider the implications of these studies.
This frequently quoted statistic refers to just one of several available studies, and there are two good reasons we shouldn’t consider it to be the representative statistic. First, it’s clear from the other research that this finding was an outlier—the other major studies on this subject suggest that 33 to 50 percent of scientists believe in a personal God, with the numbers even greater if we include those who believe more broadly in a higher power. Second, this study was conducted with a unique group—members of the National Academy of Sciences, an organization of about twenty-three hundred scientists who were elected to membership by other members. We could speculate all day about why these particular scientists are less likely to believe in a personal God, but the bottom line is that this organization is not representative of the broader scientific community. The most that can be said from this study is that 93 percent of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences and responded to the survey don’t believe in a personal God. It’s highly inaccurate to suggest that 93 percent of all scientists are atheists because this is not a representative sample.
In statistics, correlation simply means that two variables tend to move in the same direction—in this case, those who are scientists do tend to be less likely to believe in God. This doesn’t mean, however, that being a scientist necessarily causes someone not to believe in God. (Think of it this way: in some parts of the world, it rains almost every Easter, but that doesn’t mean Easter causes it to rain.) If we determined that becoming a scientist did cause people to drop their belief in God, we might have reason to think there is some inherent conflict between the practice of science and theism. But to the contrary, Ecklund’s Religion among Academic Scientists study showed that the irreligious are simply more likely to become scientists in the first place. The available research does not suggest that scientists become irreligious as a consequence of their occupation, though this is what skeptics typically assume. And if becoming irreligious is not a consequence of their occupation, then the whole topic of what scientists believe about God quickly becomes less relevant.
While we should explore this subject because it’s often raised as a challenge to the truth of Christianity, we must remember that, ultimately, beliefs aren’t true depending on who holds them. They are true because they correspond to reality. Scientists don’t have any more expertise on the reality of God’s existence than anyone else.
For more background on these studies and a full conversation guide to use with your kids in discussing this subject, see Talking with Your Kids about God pages 125-132.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2DQI3M6
Book Review: The Creator and the Cosmos
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologeticsby Luke Nix
Introduction
Several years ago, when I was struggling with science/faith issues, I stumbled upon astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ book “The Creator and the Cosmos.” He had released the third edition of the book, and many people were recommending it for those with science/faith concerns. I was already somewhat familiar with Dr. Ross’ name since I had read “The Fingerprint of God” in the mid-90s but had not pursued much more investigation (most of the content was way over my head at the time). I decided to pick up a copy of that new book in the mid-2000s and took the time to read through it carefully. I was astounded at the strength of the scientific case Dr. Ross presented for the existence of the God of the Bible.
The book helped me overcome my struggle with science and paved the way for a deeper and more reasonable faith that I still continue to investigate and communicate to others to help them through their intellectual struggles. Not only can I know emotionally and spiritually that Christianity is true, but I can know it intellectually and reasonably. Of course, I have been blogging for quite a few years regarding how to demonstrate the reasonableness and truth of the Christian worldview, and in doing so, I have been providing my readers with chapter-by-chapter summary-style reviews of many of the books that I read.
A couple years ago I decided to begin going back through some of the apologetics books that I read early on, and “The Creator and the Cosmos” was in my stack. Not too long after I made that decision, though, I found out that Dr. Ross was working on a new edition that would add the most current discoveries to his original case (making it even stronger) and address even more challenges to his case that various scientists have proposed since the book’s third edition was published. I decided to hold off on my review until that new edition had been released. Well, IT IS HERE!!!!! And I cannot be more excited for it! In keeping with my usual book reviews, I will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary then provide my recommendations. If you are reading this review on the Faithful Thinkers blog, I have embedded quotes and videos to enhance the review and better communicate the content of the book. Before I get to the summary, let’s start with this short video from Dr. Ross about how his investigation of the cosmos led him to the conclusion that the personal God of the Bible exists and led him to dedicate his life to Jesus Christ.
Are you ready to see how astronomers and astrophysicists are discovering every day that “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1)?
Let’s begin!
Chapter 1: The Awe-Inspiring Night Sky
Dr. Ross begins by describing how, as a young boy who was fascinated with astronomy, he discovered that people, in general, are intrigued with the study of the cosmos. He explains that this is not an empty curiosity but rather a profound one. If the universe had a beginning, then something must have existed to cause it to begin, and if the universe exhibits great detail in its creation, then the life that ultimately resulted must have a purpose in the mind of its Creator. He notes that the study of the cosmos is not merely a scientific pursuit of knowledge of the physical world, but it is fundamentally a philosophical and theological inquiry. Historically different groups of scholars have claimed superior knowledge of the cosmos. Scientists, theologians, and philosophers have seen their own disciplines as superseding any discoveries or claims from the other two. This has caused a lot of conflict in the academy and has placed unnecessary limits on the fruits of studying the cosmos. Dr. Ross encourages, not a separated study of the cosmos by those in these disciplines but, an integrative approach: one that takes the knowledge of all three and aims to combine their knowledge to discover a more complete and precise picture of the whole. By taking this approach, the study of the cosmos ultimately becomes tied to two of the deepest questions of life: what is the meaning of life and what is my purpose in life.
Chapter 2: My Skeptical Inquiry
Dr. Ross takes a chapter to recount his own journey. From the age of seven, he had a fascination with astronomy, and his investigation of the cosmos began. By the age of fifteen, he was convinced that the universe had a beginning, and thus a Beginner. For a short time, he believed that the beginner was unconcerned with His creation (a deistic approach), but his studies of world religions in high school informed him that people all over the world tend to believe that their holy books accurately describe reality, including the origins of the universe. Even though he fully expected that all the world’s religions would get the science wrong, he resolved to objectively investigate the claims of the world’s religions regarding the universe’s origins to test if they even had the possibility of being truly authored by the Creator/God of the universe. One-by-one Ross found errors in the various holy books about the universe, eliminating them from the realm of truth; that is until he started investigating the Bible. It took him eighteen months of nightly study to come to the conclusion that it not only contained no errors regarding the universe, but the Bible accurately described features of the universe that no person of the time of authorship (even the latest possible dates) could have possibly known. In fact, he calculated that the Bible is roughly 10^58 times more reliable than the laws of physics. At that point, he was convinced that the Bible was supernaturally inspired by the same Beginner of the universe, and he surrendered his life to Jesus Christ and spreading the Gospel using the evidence provided by the Creator’s creation.
Chapter 3: Big Bang–The Bible Taught It First
Roughly twenty-five hundred years before big bang cosmology was proposed through theoretical physics or was evidenced by observing the cosmos, the Bible, against all other cosmologies of the contemporary cultures, claimed that the universe had a beginning and was expanding: the two most fundamental features of big bang cosmology. Dr. Ross cites seven passages in the Old Testament and three in the New Testament that state that the universe had a beginning, and seven passages across both Testaments that unequivocally identify God as the cause of the universe. Eleven different passages claimed that the universe was not static but was expanding, and three of them state explicitly that the expansion was taking place by God’s intervention. What makes these passages truly interesting is that some indicate that the expansion is ongoing by God’s sovereign, providential command, while others indicate that God has completed the expansion. According to big bang cosmology, the laws of physics were set (completed), at the creation of the universe, in such a way to ensure the continual expansion of the universe at the proper rates at the proper times to ultimately prepare a home for humans (see Dr. Ross’ book “Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home” for the details on this painstakingly engineered and beautifully orchestrated process).
And taking the cosmological claims even further, the biblical authors add (several times) that the universe is governed by constant laws of physics since the creation event that included the law of decay (second law of thermodynamics- transfer of energy from hot to cold matter). Dr. Ross uses the passages to argue that the Bible also identifies a third fundamental feature of all big bang cosmological models: a constantly cooling universe. None of these concepts were known or even knowable to the ancients except for through divine inspiration by the Creator of the universe, Himself. The fact that scientists are discovering features of the universe recorded only by the writers of the Bible argues powerfully not only for God’s existence, but that He inerrantly inspired the words of Scripture.
Implications of the big bang family of models are generally misunderstood by many theists who stand against the theory. Dr. Ross concludes the chapter by clearing up a couple understandings of big bang cosmology in an effort to alleviate some of the emotional concern about the theory being in conflict with the Bible or the God of the Bible as the Beginner. For more on resolving a literal and historical reading of Genesis with the scientific discoveries, see Dr. Ross’ books “A Matter of Days” and “Navigating Genesis.”
Chapter 4: Discovery of the Twentieth Century
All hot big bang models predicted that scientists would discover that the universe and all it contains rapidly expanded from a nearly infinitely small volume with a nearly infinitely high temperature. While theoretical physics predicted that some form of big bang cosmology was correct and other indirect evidences existed pointing to the same conclusion, no signature (evidence of this nearly infinitely hot initial volume) had been discovered, until the early 90s. In 1992 the announcement of the big bang theory’s fingerprint was made: the COBE satellite had discovered direct evidence of the cooling of the universe from its initially hot state. Not only did this discovery establish that the universe began from a near-infinitely hot volume, but it also established that the expansion of the universe was incredibly finely tuned.
Dr. Ross uses the analogy of an oven to illustrate both implications of the COBE observation. When an oven is heated, the space closer to it will be hotter while space further from it will be cooler, and when the oven is turned off for an extended period of time, the temperature throughout the room will normalize. COBE measured outer space to be the same temperature in all directions at the same distances, indicating that a source of heat had existed at some point in time. COBE also measured hotter temperatures at further locations, indicating that the source of heat had been “turned off.” This not only confirmed the universe’s beginning as predicted by big bang cosmology (and the Bible before it), but it also falsified several competing beginningless models. Placing the big bang on even firmer evidential ground was the fact that the measured temperature and temperature differences matched a 1940s prediction of the theory.
On the first impression, it may appear that the uniformity of the temperatures raises a problem: how can stars form if the temperature is perfectly uniform throughout the history of the universe? Interestingly enough, though, the temperatures measured by COBE were not perfectly smooth across directions and distances. The variations were small enough that the implications of a beginning stood firmly yet large enough that stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters could form, and form at a finely-tuned rate necessary for life. As time went on from the initial COBE discovery announcement, more instruments were used to independently confirm the discovery, and more precise measurements were taken that led to the refining (fine-tuning) of the big bang models and galaxy formation models. Since then, numerous observations continue to confirm COBE’s discovery of these predictions of big bang cosmology. As more and more discoveries are made, science continues to confirm the biblical claim that the universe had a beginning caused by a Beginner outside of time and space. The evidence for God as the Creator is getting stronger every day. Dr. Ross continues the chapter going into detail on numerous discoveries that establish the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe.
Chapter 5: Twenty-First Century Discoveries- Part I
The previous chapter only covered the discoveries from the 20th century that establishes the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe, which was enough to place them on powerful evidential grounds. As technological breakthroughs continue, the mound of evidence grows. In the next two chapters, Dr. Ross details discoveries of the 21st century that continue to establish the biblical truth of God as Creator and Designer.
While discoveries of the 20th century established that the universe was expanding, discoveries of the 21st century have revealed the rate of expansion. Using type 1a supernovae discovered in the last 20 years, scientists have been able to establish the expansion rate of the universe during the different epochs of the history of the universe. As technology has advanced, these measurements have revealed an extremely finely tuned expansion, and newer technology is expected to reveal more precision in the coming years. When Albert Einstein originally formulated his theory of relativity, it predicted that the universe had a beginning, but that was in direct contradiction to the popular cosmological models of the time. Einstein did attempt to make his theory compatible with beginningless models by adding a “cosmological constant;” however, the discoveries (discussed in the previous chapters) demonstrated that Einstein’s original theory was correct. However, scientists have placed the “cosmological constant” back into the equations, but using different values than Einstein, not in an attempt to avoid a beginning but, to explain the expansion of the universe and maintain the universe’s beginning. This “cosmological constant” is commonly known as dark energy.
Not only is dark energy a problem for naturalism because it necessarily implies that the universe had a beginning, but it necessarily implies that that beginning was too recent in the past for naturalism to explain the origin of life (see Dr. Ross’ book “Origins of Life” for an in-depth study of this challenge) or the diversity of life we see today. As independent discoveries continue to establish that the denial of dark energy’s existence is irrational, dark energy is providing some of the most powerful evidence, not just for the beginning of the universe but, that the universe’s expansion was finely tuned for life. The same evidence that leads to the conclusion that the universe has a beginning, when studied in more depth also reveals fine-tuning to a level of 1 part in 10^122 (that is 10 with 122 zeros after it). To say that scientists have discovered that the universe is “exquisitely designed” is a most spectacular understatement.
Chapter 6: Twenty-First Century Discoveries- Part II
While a cosmic beginning and the cosmic expansion have been overwhelmingly confirmed in these beginning years of the 21st century, several other predictions of big bang cosmology have been put to the test. Big bang cosmology can be tested by making measurements of the amounts of different elements at different epochs of the universe. Dr. Ross explains several independent studies that have yielded confirmed predictions regarding the abundances of helium and deuterium; however, measurements of lithium abundance have missed the mark, indicating incomplete detailing of the current suite of models. Several possible solutions have been proposed, resulting in more detailed big bang models to be tested as technology advances.
Other ways to test big bang models have also only become available in the 21st century. The spatial separation of galaxies over time has provided another test for big bang cosmology. Over time, the general model predicts that galaxies will be further and further apart from one another. As cosmologists observe galaxies further and further away from earth (further back in time, since it takes time for light to reach the telescopes), the galaxies appear closer and closer together gradually as distance increases. Another test would be the predicted rate of expansion over time. Building upon the discussion in the previous chapter, using the fine-tuning of dark energy, big bang models predict the amount that has elapsed since the creation event itself. The time calculated is roughly 13.78 billion years. To test this age, several other independent methods have been used to determine the age as well, and all are consistent within the error bars (±0.26 billion years). If big bang cosmology were incorrect, the ages discovered using independent methods would differ radically not within the error bars of the initial prediction.
Building further upon those confirmed predictions, more predictions are made and can be tested. Specifically, if we know the rate of expansion and the amount of time of the expansion, then a cooling curve can be derived. Using the latest information and technology, the predicted cooling curve has been tested and confirmed by using two independent methods of observing the variation in temperature of the cosmos at different distances (epochs). This next generation of confirmed predictions (predictions arising from previously confirmed predictions) demonstrates the continued confirmation and shear explanatory power of big bang cosmology and, thus, the existence of a Creator and Designer of the universe, just as the Bible claims.
Chapter 7: Einstein’s Challenge
This chapter is a short one, almost an “intermission.” Dr. Ross dedicates some space to discussing Albert Einstein’s equations of relativity and how they implied a beginning. He explained that the cosmology of an eternal universe, which he attributes to Immanuel Kant, was accepted by Einstein; thus Einstein believed that his equations were missing a term that would perfectly counter-act all expansion. After Edwin Hubble observed the galaxies moving away, Einstein conceded and removed his additional term. This, however, did not convert Einstein to a theist; he rather accepted that God was the creator but was impersonal and unconcerned with the affairs of His creatures. His primary objection to a personal God is related to God’s sovereignty and man’s moral responsibility. Dr. Ross laments the fact that Einstein did not get to see his “cosmological constant” reinserted (though, at a different value) or all the fine-tuning evidence that his theories had paved the way for scientists to discover, for these may have intrigued Einstein enough to reconsider Christian theism and seek resolution to his theological concerns that stood as a stumbling block between him and Jesus Christ.
Chapter 8: Closing Loopholes: Round One
Of course, Einstein was not the only scientist to resist a finite universe. Many scientific theories, that depended upon the availability of an infinite amount of time, had already been developed and became part of scientific orthodoxy before big bang cosmology was confirmed. The confirmation of big bang cosmology has turned many of these theories on their heads, and in some cases completely falsified them (13.7 billion years renders naturalistic theories of the origin of life impossible- see Dr. Ross’ book “Origins of Life” for an in-depth study of this challenge). Several different naturalistic models have been proposed in an effort to avoid a singular cosmic beginning. The first competing model is the steady-state model.
Simply put, this model holds that the universe has existed into the infinite past. It attempts to counteract the expansion of the universe by positing that matter is constantly being created. Several tests have been conducted to confirm that this simply is not happening, thus falsifying the steady-state model. Another version of the steady state has been proposed, though. This one holds to the universe existing the infinite past but posits that matter is only created in bursts at specific locations within the universe (quasars). Unfortunately for this quasi-steady-state model, the test that is proposed is fully consistent with big bang predictions as well. In fact, the observed densities of quasars at different distances not only shows the quasi-steady-state model incorrect, they match the specific predictions of big bang cosmology. The same observations serve to falsify one model (quasi-steady-state) and confirm its competitor (big bang); thus observations again confirm that the universe had a beginning, just as the ancient biblical authors recorded thousands of years ago.
Chapter 9: Closing Loopholes: Round Two
Even though observations relegated steady-state models to the abyss, many non-theists still wished to avoid a singular, absolute beginning. They hypothesized that perhaps the big bang was just one of many in an infinite series of expansions and contractions of the universe into the infinite past. This new theory would be able to account for all the same evidence that supports the beginning without there being a single beginning. This model, though, required mechanisms to shrink the universe and cause it to bounce back from the compressed volume (not infinitesimally small, as proposed by big bang cosmology, though). Both theoretical and observational evidence demonstrates that neither mechanism exists. In order for the universe to recompress, it would require a considerable amount of matter more than what exists in the universe (even after accounting for exotic matter).
If no mechanism exists to compress, then no mechanism can exist to reexpand the compressed mass. Compounding the problem is the existence of entropy. Entropy would require that each successive “bounce” would produce a universe smaller and smaller. If the universe had been getting smaller from the infinite past, the size of the universe today would be no different from the fully compressed volume. Thus this “oscillating” universe model, as it is commonly called, fails observationally and theoretically not just on these counts but on others that Dr. Ross details.
There does exist a short period of time after the big bang that no technology can observe (from the beginning to when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old). Theoretical physicists use this period of time in the universe’s history to speculate about exotic physics that may ultimately remove the need for a singular beginning or a beginning at all. However, even though they cannot be directly tested, these theories can be indirectly tested. All theories must result in a universe that exhibits the features that scientists observe today, so these speculations can be tested (negatively tested only; they can only be falsified but never confirmed) by comparing their implications to what exists today. Dr. Ross gives several examples of how these speculative theories have been falsified through indirect testing.
Chapter 10: Science Discovers the Creation of Time
If established, the beginning of time would have one of the most significant theological implications. It would require that time had a creator; something that only the Bible, among the world’s “holy” books, unambiguously claims about our world. In the late 1960s, the space-time theorems of general relativity were proposed by a team including none other than Stephen Hawking. Based upon the extensive testing of general relativity (which Dr. Ross spends the majority of the chapter explaining in detail), these theorems have been well established and indicate the big bang was the beginning of not only space but time, as well.
As mentioned above, many attempts have been trying to avoid the beginning by appealing to unknowns within the first moments of the universe’s existence. The hope, by those who oppose a Creator, is that this period of time would allow for the universe, somehow, to be past infinite in age. However, the space-time theorems of general relativity were extended even further back and being based upon already well-established observational evidence, do prove correct, The implications of this extension is that an absolute beginning is required even beyond the initial moments of the universe’s existence. This means that all models, including oscillating models and multiverse models, eventually would require an absolute beginning at some point in time and that the cause of the universe exists beyond the space-time dimensions (transcendent existence). These are discoveries that no “holy book” saw coming (predicted), except for the Bible.
Chapter 11: A God Outside of Time, But Knowable
Even though the extended space-time theorems established that the universe had a beginning, that means that whatever (or Whoever) caused the universe also created time. In order for cause and effect relationships to exist, time must also exist. The Bible stands alone claiming that while there is a portion of reality in which our time did not exist (e.g., 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 1:2), the Creator was still operating in cause-and-effect relationships (e.g. John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20). Dr. Ross explains that to create God exists in, at least, one more dimension of time (to create the dimension of time that our universe operates within) and possibly in more physical dimensions as well. (Dr. Ross refers the reader to his book “Beyond the Cosmos” for a deeper discussion of this possibility and some of the theological questions it may help to answer.) Big bang cosmology establishes that the Creator is transcendent, which Christianity affirms yet other worldviews deny.
One of the requirements of the time-space theorems is that time always moves forward; Dr. Ross states that this really makes time only half a dimension, which requires that anything that is confirmed to it must have a beginning. Many skeptics often challenge God’s existence by asking if everything was created, then who or what created God. This is answered by recognizing that the Creator is not confined to the time half-dimension, which would require a beginning, but since God is not confined to this half-dimension, He does not require a beginning. Skeptics have proposed other possibilities to avoid time’s beginning (to avoid the universe’s needing a cause), and Dr. Ross concludes the chapter by quickly addressing these alternative hypotheses.
Chapter 12: A Brief Look At A Brief History of Time
In this chapter, Dr. Ross interacts with the conclusions Stephen Hawking offered in his books “A Brief History of Time” and “The Grand Design.” In the first book, Hawking proposes his and James Hartle’s model that appeals to imaginary time to avoid a cosmic beginning and thus the necessity of a Beginner. Beyond the evidentially unwarranted appeal to imaginary time, the model necessarily requires that sometime in the future, the universe will eventually stop expanding and compress back on itself. However, this model cannot be true because the universe does not possess enough matter to allow such a collapse to take place no matter how distant in the future. There have been several attempts to reformulate the model to accommodate the latest evidence, but all appeals have since fallen short of the evidence.
In “The Grand Design,” Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow appeal to discoveries of extra-solar planets to demonstrate that the earth is not unique but quite common, and they appeal to the multiverse to avoid an absolute beginning to the universe. The claims, if correct, seem to remove the need for a Beginner or a Designer to explain the current state of our universe. Dr. Ross will reserve an entire chapter on the discussion of the multiverse, but he addresses exoplanets here. He explains that of the 3600+ exoplanets that have been discovered so far, none of them are sufficiently like earth (it must exist in all nine habitable zones- discussed in greater detail his book “Improbable Planet“) to support life more advanced than the hardiest of microbes. Dr. Ross explains that for those expecting to discover extra-terrestrial life, the latest discoveries great disappoint. In order for life to exist on another planet, not only must an exact twin of our planet exist, it must exist in the context of an exact solar twin and an exact solar system twin (that would mean that our neighboring planets’ compositions and locations would have to match, as well).
Not only is there the planetary issue for an environment suitable for the origin of life, but there is also the biochemical challenges. Dr. Ross explains that prebiotic chemistry shuts down in the presence of oxygen yet fatal ultraviolet radiation can only be filtered out by oxygen. This presents a problem for the origin of life on earth because studies into the history of our planet demonstrate that the level of oxygen was more than sufficient to prevent prebiotic chemistry at the time in history that the first evidence of life appears. Dr. Ross spends the remainder of the chapter demonstrating how science has provided problems for Hawking’s views not only in observation of the universe but also regarding ideas of knowledge (epistemology).
Chapter 13: A Modern-Day Goliath
Of course, Hawking’s model is not the only challenge to a beginning and design that exist to this day. As the evidence of a Creator has been mounting over the decades, skeptics have been busy looking in all directions for some possible escape from the biblical claim of a Creator and Designer. Quantum mechanics has seemed to provide some promise to this end in four ways. Various appeals to quantum tunneling, a universe from “nothing,” an infinite multiverse, and observer-created reality have all been attempted.
In the first of these options (quantum tunneling, offered by Paul Davies), the proposed mechanism would have to take place in the physical dimension of time before the dimension of time even existed. This proposal also requires that things popping into existence uncaused is a common feature of reality, yet observations of reality demonstrate the very opposite. The second attempt addressed is the model of Lawrence Krauss. This proposal is dependent upon a “hyper” quantum mechanics that is not constrained by the universe yet requires higher dimensions to operate. Among other issues, the big problem with Krauss’ model is that it requires a second hyper-inflationary event that, when combined with the current inflationary event already required by big bang cosmology, does not produce any universe where life is possible. This failure, though, has caused Krauss to resort to the third option: an infinite multiverse.
Some skeptics believe they can escape an absolute beginning and fine-tuning by appealing to an infinite multiverse. The idea of the infinite multiverse is that if an infinite number of universes exist that exhibit an infinite number of different values for the physical constants, then at least one of them will produce life. Unfortunately, this still does not eliminate the need for God for at least five reasons that Dr. Ross describes in detail. The fourth and final option appeals to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Dr. Ross explains eight ways in which this interpretation violates logic and reality; thus an alternative is necessary. Quantum mechanics currently has ten interpretations that have been seriously proposed, some of which are perfectly compatible with God as both Creator and Designer. Ultimately, quantum mechanics poses no threat to big bang cosmology or to the biblically predicted discovery of the universe’s absolute beginning caused by a Beginner beyond space and time.
Chapter 14: The Divine Watch-Maker
The design argument offered by William Paley is one of the most popular. He offers that just as no one would posit that a watch was the product of natural processes because it is unreasonable, so too no one should posit that creatures with similar or greater complexity and specificity are the product of natural processes. This argument has been attacked on several different fronts that Dr. Ross addresses in this chapter. The first is that of David Hume. Hume’s issue with the argument is that organisms are not close enough to a watch in function or configuration for the analogy to be a good one. Dr. Ross responds simply by pointing out that Hume was speaking in a period of time when knowledge of organisms’ functions and configurations was extremely limited. Since then, the discoveries have taken knowledge of the function and configurations of organisms (and their individual cells and molecules) well beyond that of watches; thus Paley’s analogy stands firmly.
Darwin offers that his observation of gradual change between generations of the same species of animals, where bad changes are weeded out by the reduced or inability of organisms to reproduce, explains how such complex organisms could arise from simpler organisms. The admission by Darwinists that their mechanisms cannot come into play until the origin of life takes place means that before evolution can be explanatory of complexity and diversity (from a naturalistic perspective), all origin-of-life issues and challenges must be resolved. The just-right requirements of the origin of life keep pushing the origin of life closer to the current day in cosmic history, yet evidence of complex life keeps pushing the appearance of complexity further back. These two are getting so close to each other as to suffocate any undirected hypothesis for the design found in organisms. Dr. Ross also points out that the Bible alone makes sense of the sudden disappearance of new species from the fossil record shortly before the first appearance of humans. God’s final creation was humans, according to Genesis. Thus the Bible predicts this sudden halt in diversification, yet the evolutionary paradigm predicts the exact opposite.
Gould believes that the evidence of “bad designs” in nature demonstrated that organisms exhibiting such poor features could not have been designed by an intelligent designer. But this argument fails on two accounts. First, as research has continued into the “bad designs,” scientists have discovered that they are actually good designs by themselves or within the context of the overall system they are part of. Second, the divine design does not preclude natural processes, which may allow for some diversification within the observed limits. Thus challenges to William Paley’s argument do not stand, and, again, the biblical view that a Designer created the universe and all within it stands unfalsified and evidentially and logically sound.
Chapter 15: A “Just-Right” Universe
Illuded to in the discussion on the multiverse is the need for an infinite number of universes of an infinite number of values for the constants of physics to allow for just one of them to produce life. In this chapter, Dr. Ross goes into more detail about the fine-tuning of the laws, components, and processes of this universe necessary for advanced life that warrant the necessity of an infinite multiverse for the naturalist. From the subatomic scale to the molecular scale, the types, varieties, and ratios of the various building blocks of our universe have precise values required for not just for life, but for stars, galaxies, and planets to form. The laws of physics that govern the behavior of these components also must be precisely finely tuned within a large range of possibilities, again, just for stars, galaxies, and planets to form. Dr. Ross describes only a few of these different values in this chapter. The ones that he chose, though, establish firmly why naturalists are compelled to agree with, at least, the appearance of fine-tuning of this universe for life. He mentions that 140 different values have been discovered to be required and precisely finely-tuned; otherwise life would be impossible, over the decades, and the trend continues.
Different skeptics have responded in different ways to the compelling evidence of the fine-tuning. Dr. Ross includes several pages loaded with quotes from various astrophysicists, who have studied the values, who recognize the appeal to intelligent agency (indirectly and directly) to explain the presence of so many features and the precision of the fine-tuning. Of course, not all astrophysicists grant a Designer (of some sort). Some insist on naturalistic explanations. All the arguments for these alternatives to God fall under one (or more) of five different arguments. Dr. Ross takes each one and addresses the essential features that render them untenable as challenges to fine-tuning. The last of the five challenges that Dr. Ross addresses focus on the model presented by Frank Tipler. After demonstrating the various ways that the model fails, Dr. Ross concludes the discussion and the chapter by rejoicing that Tipler eventually accepted the theological implications of big bang cosmology and accepted Christ as a result of the evidence that God put forth in His creation.
Chapter 16: Responding to Nonempirical, Nontheistic Models
Given all the physical and empirical evidence of the God of the Bible presented in the pages of this book, many skeptics have resorted to using nonempirical reasons to justify their skepticism. It is common (as discussed above) for the skeptic to appeal to either what is not currently known (other physics) or what is unknowable (complete speculation) to rescue their denial of God from being totally illogical. Some skeptics use circular reasoning in their models to attempt to escape a cosmic beginning (they begin with a cosmological model that precludes a beginning then uses it as evidence of a lack of a beginning). Another tactic is the requirement of 100% certainty or absolute proof (the requirement that all conceivable questions and challenges must be answered) before acceptance of the conclusion of God’s existence is accepted. If this kind of proof were required before we were willing to believe things in everyday life, living and even relationships would be impossible.
A common skeptical challenge to God’s existence is that theists are simply inserting “God” where there is a lack of knowledge- “God” is merely a mechanistic gap-filler to explain how something happened when the “real” mechanism has not yet been discovered. Interestingly enough, naturalists do the same; they insert “nature” where mechanisms have not yet been discovered (examples are given above). Dr. Ross explains that, for both sides, there is no guarantee that the gap in knowledge will be filled or not filled. Ongoing research has revealed natural mechanisms, and ongoing research has revealed the impossibility of natural mechanisms (as described thoroughly above regarding attempts to erase the cosmic beginning). Dr. Ross explains that even if gaps seem to be filled, they are never completely filled, so gaps in our knowledge will always exist.
Even though Dr. Ross has shown throughout this book, when it comes to cosmology the trend of shrinking gaps is on the side of the biblical God while the trend of enlarging gaps is on the side of naturalism, there exists other areas where these trends continue: the origin of life and creating life in the lab. Dr. Ross summarizes some of the latest information in these fields to make his case (more detail can be found in the books “Origins of Life” and “Creating Life In The Lab,” respectively). Dr. Ross encourages the skeptic to recognize and follow where the trend of the evidence is leading: to the biblical God.
Chapter 17: Earth: The Place for Life
Dr. Ross explains that the universe, as a whole, is not the only scale at which fine-tuning is detectable. Fine-tuning has been discovered at the scales of the galaxy-cluster, galaxy, star, solar system, and planet. The right type and size of a galaxy are necessary. It must be a spiral galaxy (which removes most galaxies in the cosmos from consideration), and it cannot be too big or too small. The galaxy cluster must also not be too densely populated with other galaxies, which would gravitational destruction of the life site, or too sparsely populated, which would prevent the spiral structure of the host galaxy from being maintained for the proper amount of time for life to originate and continue. The host star must also be located at the right spot between the spiral arms of the galaxy and maintain this location as the galaxy rotates, to avoid gravitational disturbances from other stars in the galaxy. This means that two+ star systems are ruled out as well. The mass of the star must be just right, for if it is too massive it would burn too quickly and if it is not massive enough it would flare too much. The mass also affects the zone around the star that the host planet may reside, which if too close or too far has its own set of pitfalls for life.
Because of these constraining requirements for carbon-based life, some scientists have speculated that perhaps carbon-based life is not the only possible type of life. However, the only other elements that have the possibility of being a basis for life are either too rare, too poisonous, or are unstable with a large number of chemical bonds. This means that the life-site must be able to support the origin and maintenance of carbon-based life. Scientists have discovered nine different “habitable zones” (physical locations) that the host site must reside in simultaneously. The only place where life can originate and be maintained is the locations where all nine zones overlap. Dr. Ross lists out each of these zones and refers the reader to his book “Improbable Planet” for a detailed discussion of them.
Improbable Planet from RTB: MEDIA on Vimeo.
To add to the fine-tuning of the site for life, the planetary neighbors and the moon must also be finely-tuned. The neighboring planets must be the right size and distance to be able to shield the life site from most life-exterminating collisions but not massive enough and/or close enough to interfere with the gravitational orbit of the site around its host star. Yet, they do need to allow one exterminating collider (what created our moon) before life originates in order to set up the site for maintaining life (plate tectonics, delivery of vital poisons, and recycling nutrients). The list of features that must be finely-tuned just goes on and on in this chapter. Outside the work of a purposeful Mind behind this finely-tuned project (that is, life), believing that we are here by natural processes alone scientifically and philosophically defy credulity. It is only the work of a purposeful Creator and Designer, who desires to be known that scientists even exist to discover the power, beauty, and majesty in our cosmos that reflects its Creator. This chapter certainly stands on its own to establish fine-tuning, but for those who wish to go even deeper to discover levels of fine-tuning beyond the scope of this chapter, check out Dr. Ross’ book-length treatments, “Why The Universe Is The Way It Is” and “Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home.”
Chapter 18: Extradimensional and Transdimensional Powers
Throughout this book, Dr. Ross has shown how scientific evidence leads to the conclusion that the Cause of the universe is transcendent and exists and operates outside of time and our familiar dimensions of length, width, and height. The Bible, as explained in the first chapters, identifies God as the Cause of the universe. But the Bible doesn’t stop at describing God simply as the Creator; it reveals much more about God’s character, including some attributes that are difficult to understand. Some of these include His triune nature and His simultaneous distance from and nearness to humanity. Dr. Ross explains that while these concepts may seem impossible to comprehend and thus causes us to doubt His existence, these attributes can make sense within the expanded existence of additional spatial dimensions and at least one more time dimension. Dr. Ross uses these two examples to demonstrate that the apparent difficulties in God’s character or interaction with the universe are not valid reasons to doubt His existence, and our understanding of the Creator’s ability to act within extra dimensions provide a possible way to resolve the apparent difficulties.
Chapter 19: The Point
Dr. Ross concludes by answering the question of why God has chosen this generation to be the beneficiary of all the evidence presented here and not previous generations. He explains that it appears that God gives more evidence-based upon the level of resistance to Him in culture. He explains that with all the extra time and comfort of this generation compared to previous generations, this generation tends to credit themselves with these great accomplishments and ignore the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. This revelation of stronger and stronger evidence of the Creator is presented to counteract the prideful attitude of today’s culture. But not every member of our generation thinks this way. Many are willing to look at the evidence presented and follow it to where it leads with an attitude of humility. Dr. Ross reminds the reader that the Creator will draw near to and reward those who earnestly seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). Christians can use the evidence that God has revealed through the study of the heavens to strengthen their own faith and to show the honest seeker the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.
Reviewer’s Thoughts
As I alluded to in the introduction, this “The Creator and the Cosmos” was an indispensable tool that Christ used to help me resolve struggles that I had between what I heard scientists were discovering about our universe (the big bang) and my Christian faith. Not only has God turn naturalistic and atheistic arguments on their heads, He has demonstrated through His creation that His Word is true, inerrant, and authoritative. I love how Dr. Ross presented the evidence for each one of these. His approach of providing evidence upon evidence upon evidence upon evidence for both the beginning of the universe (what begins to exist must have a beginner) and the design of the universe (what is designed must have a designer) is compelling, to say the least, and his tone with which he presents his case is confident yet humble.
As he concludes his discussion in each chapter, Dr. Ross always brings the reader back to the God of the Bible. He presents the latest discoveries of scientists and shows how they demonstrate God as the Creator. He does not shy away from seemingly powerful challenges and shows how those challenges, when investigated more deeply, either come apart or actually make a case for God even stronger. I love how he concludes the book with a call to both the believer and the unbeliever. To the believer, Dr. Ross encourages them to use the evidence from God’s creation to provide to the unbeliever “a reason for the hope that they have…with gentleness and respect.” He invites the unbeliever to follow that evidence where it leads and surrender their life to their Creator and Savior.
I have always loved watching scientific documentaries that describe how the cosmos works, but I always felt uncomfortable when origins began to be discussed. Since reading “The Creator and the Cosmos” for the first time, I have not watched those documentaries the same. Every time a feature of the universe is described, I now see multiplied evidence of the universe’s beginning, of its intricate fine-tuning for humanity, and of its awesome beauty: all God’s handiwork. This book has turned nearly every scientific documentary into a tool to strengthen my faith and demonstrate to the scientifically minded skeptic the evidence for God as our Creator. This book had a tremendous impact on my faith, my life, and my witness for Christ. Any Christian bookshelf is incomplete without a copy of “The Creator and the Cosmos.”
I want to leave you with one more video. This video traces a prediction of big bang cosmology that Dr. Ross pointed out that would confirm the universe had a beginning (and a Beginner). This prediction was recently confirmed by observational evidence. When pressed by his fellow physicists, listen carefully to anti-theist Dr. Lawrence Krauss’ final response:
For those who want to continue to mass the evidence for God’s existence from the cosmos, follow up “Creator and the Cosmos” with these books:
For those specifically concerned about big bang cosmology (not evolution) and a literal, historical interpretation of Genesis 1-3, check out these books:
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2pBGg8C
Christian Vs. Secular Ideology: The Power Of The Resurrection
Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologeticsby Justin Steckbauer
There is a war on today. It’s not a war of guns or bombs, but a war of ideas. The war is about worldview. The war is about the course of human history. The war is about religion and the eviction of God from modern society.
Battles rage on the horizon at this very moment. We can hear the echoes and thuds in the distance. We can feel the reverberations. We can smell the tension in the air.
The battle is waged by major media outlets, television networks, church organizations, charities, psychology organizations, scientific think tanks, atheist groups, corporations, big businesses, banks, neighborhood churches, universities, seminaries, and a thousand other institutions and enterprises.
The ideologies are extremely wide-ranging within such a massive expose’ of entities. But one side seeks to quietly evict God from all aspects of modern society. They want to put any of religious leanings out of government, out of the public sector, and simply out of society. You could call it secularization, the eviction of religious thought. It’s a battle of ideology. The other side wants to keep a reference to God in government. They want the freedom to practice faith in public, at any time they choose. They want religious people to have a respected and honored place in society. They want the freedom to share their faith while at work, or at home, or at the store or anywhere else. They want a nation that honors God.
We see the battle on the national stage on a daily basis. It seems to be a constant battle for the moral high ground. Who is abusing who? Which side is right and which side is wrong? Who is the victim? Who needs to be protected? Both sides fight for the moral high ground, for the sympathy of the great silent majority.
Who will win? I have no idea. Maybe left, maybe right, maybe neither. Throughout the history of the United States, there have been great divides within the ranks of the citizenry. Think of the revolutionary war and the contentions between loyalists and revolutionaries. Think of the great debate over slavery. Think of the war between the north and the south during the civil war. Think of the civil rights movements. And think of today, in the war of ideas fought between the progressive left and the conservative right.
There are certainly noble causes on both sides of the aisle. In the past, I supported mainly liberal causes. I was a member of the Sierra Club. I helped with the Wal Mart protests and helped workers fight for wages that were fair so they wouldn’t all have to be on welfare while working full-time hours at a rich business. I’ve helped with causes on Moveon.org. I fought against the citizens united ruling. I stood up for Net neutrality. Those were and are all good and noble causes. I participated in the local protest against the corrupt business practices of Monsanto in my hometown of Wausau, Wisconsin. I’m skeptical of GMOs, and I’m also skeptical of groups who say more government is the answer to some of these issues. I’ve also supported anti-war groups and stood against unnecessary wars and excessive military spending.
Yet I’ve also stood for many conservative causes. I donate to and support Alliance defending Freedom, Liberty Institute, and the ACLJ. I stand for religious liberty and the right to practice faith in all areas of life. I’m an advocate for the organization “Abolish human abortion.” I support Gospel for Asia and Compassion International. I receive newsletters from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. I also support the causes behind Liberty Counsel, and I receive their newsletter. I’ve given to CRU and advocated for groups like the Veritas Forum, RZIM, Reasonable Faith, and Cross Examined. I’ve stood against Planned Parenthood. I’ve advocated for conservative economic policy. I’ve fought for a natural view of marriage, of one man and one woman. I’m a firm advocate of Liberty University. I support conservative organizations like the Salvation Army, St. Vincent De Paul, Thrivent Financial, and the Heritage Foundation.
We have to ask ourselves, what spurs us to do right and to do wrong? Is it conditions? Is it society? Is it our upbringing? I’m sure those things do contribute. Yet there is one factor that seems to build into everything. It upsets every system. It corrupts every process. It pushes every nation off course from prosperity. That is the human capacity for evil. We have an inordinate desire to do wrong. But it’s more complicated than that. It’s not that we’re just simply evil. Most of us want to do the right thing. We really really do. But there is another force in there that upsets our good intentions. There is an allurement that takes us off course, every time. And terrible things happen as a result.
The point is simple: We want to do the right thing. But we can’t. Something else is at work within us. The truth is we need a savior. We need a spirit beyond our spirit to come within us, and help us to overcome our own harmful desires. It’s not an easy thing to admit. But it’s the truth.
Thankfully we do have a savior and his name is Jesus Christ. The power of the resurrection is the power of Jesus Christ to give life to those who are in need of it. All of us fear death, but in Christ, we need never fear again.
The power of the resurrection has changed the world forever. It led to the birth of orphanages, hospitals, and universities. It led entire generations to turn from their selfish desires and seek to live in a God-loving biblical manner. It led to the founding of organizations like the Red Cross, Goodwill, YMCA, and of course the Salvation Army.
Without the resurrection, the world would be a very different place. It would be a very dark place. We can only imagine what it might be like.
Western civilization has come together in a way where there is a great deal of prosperity and liberty. Think back to the time of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The world was chaotic and authoritarian. Then came the disciples of Christ, the followers of the way, bringing salt and light to an ancient civilization called the Roman empire. At first followers of the way were persecuted, hated, murdered, and eventually exterminated in massive persecutions. But eventually, the Roman empire was transformed by the power of the gospel.
In the United States in the 1700s something very special happened. The persecuted of Europe took to the United States to be free to conduct their religious beliefs in the way they saw fit. The grand experiment took place, of a free nation, creating their own Constitution. The result was one of the most prosperous and free nations the world had ever seen. In all these things was the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the power to change the character of people. One person at a time the message transformed cultures and societies. Today we live in the result of the power of the resurrection to guide a nation. If our nation ever turns from the gospel, the results could be terrible. Think of the secular revolution in France just after the American revolution. What did they often say? “Heads will roll,” and they certainly did. Without an outside reference to base all beliefs on, natural law, then there is nothing but a subjective vacuous morality pinned to the changing moods of the populous of a nation. Hope and pray that America never turns from her foundation, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The power of the resurrection is to transform cultures and nations. Yet even more so the power of the resurrection is the power to make dead people live forever. Amen.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ukDPx0
Miracles with Dr. Craig Keener [Part 1]
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
Most modern prejudice against biblical miracle reports depends on David Hume’s argument that uniform human experience precluded miracles. Yet current research shows that human experience is far from uniform. In fact, hundreds of millions of people today claim to have experienced miracles. Frank interviews New Testament scholar Craig Keener not only about the reliability of the miracle eyewitness accounts of Gospels and Acts but also documented modern-day miracles. The evidence will leave with more than just something to think about.
Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts
by Craig S. Keener
Link: http://a.co/irMXMQs
Rally For Reason
Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Terrell Clemmons
“Don’t be surprised to find out that there are atheists and agnostics in your midst,” Ted said to me, after railing against the evils of organized religion. I got the impression he expected some kind of visible reaction from me.
But I wasn’t surprised. He’d already said he was a humanist. The two kind of go together. Besides, I’m not horrified over atheists. I took the bait. You wanna discuss atheism, Ted? Let’s discuss atheism. “So, I get that you have problems with organized religion, Ted. But human organizations aside, do you believe there is a God? Or do you believe there is not a God?”
Ted didn’t give me a straightforward answer, though. Instead, he referred me to Sam Harris, one of his “favorite authors and Freethinkers,” who takes issue with some Catholic teachings and other Christian ideas about God. That was fine for Sam Harris, but Ted didn’t answer for himself. So I repeated the question.
This time he answered. “I don’t believe there is a God,” he said and followed up with a caricature of Christianity. “I don’t believe there is a supreme being that created the universe; and sits in heaven and watches every movement and monitors the thoughts of every human. I see very clearly the problems of organized religion…the hypocrisies, the greed, the sadistic, bullying behavior.”
Now I had something to work with. In the language of the basic logic of reasoning from premises (P) to conclusions (C), I reflected his own reasoning back to him. “Ok, Ted, correct me if I’m wrong. From what I’m hearing, your reasoning goes something like this:
P: People associated with organized religion have engaged in the objectionable behavior.
C: Therefore, there is no God.”
Since he’d quoted Sam Harris, I did the same for Harris’s reasoning. “And Sam Harris’s reasoning goes something like this:
P: The character traits of God as presented by some organized religions are objectionable to me.
C: Therefore, there is no God.”
At this, Ted clarified himself a bit. He was a “science guy,” and God, if he exists, is either “impotent…or evil.” And then he was ready to be done with it. “But, enough about what I think,” he said, and he shifted the subject to something else.
This exchange illustrates something about non-theists, whether they call themselves humanists, agnostics, atheists, freethinkers, or whatever label they prefer. At root, the atheist’s position is intellectually unsound.
Here’s another example:
Ivan: “I’m definitely an atheist. I am an atheist because I cannot believe in fantasy. There is no God. There is no Heaven. There is no Hell. That stuff was created by man to help a man feel better about himself. When I look at the scientific facts, I cannot believe in that. So yes, I am an atheist. Absolutely.”
Terrell: “Which scientific facts?”
Ivan reads off statistics about the size of the universe, emphasizing its vastness. “To think that there’s some type of supreme being, call it God or Jesus, that is bigger than that? That is concerned about us on earth? About our welfare? About our future? It’s absolutely preposterous,”
Ivan’s reasoning went like this:
P: The universe is really huge.
C: Therefore, there is no God.
Like Ted, Ivan considers himself a “science guy.”
Well, I like science, too. And, sure, the size of the universe is a marvel. But it says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. Nothing, whatsoever. Soon, Ivan was ready to call it quits too. “I believe that at some point, people end up with firm convictions,” he wrote to me in an e-mail. “Their viewpoints should be respected and further attempts to convert them should be avoided because not everybody wants to be converted.”
Ahh, now we have arrived at the heart of the matter: Not everybody wants to be converted. These two exchanges expose the heretofore hidden reality that Ted and Ivan have made a personal, philosophical faith choice to disbelieve. Believers need to remember this and press those vocal non-theists to make their case. The prevailing posture among atheism says the atheistic worldview is more intellectually sound and evolutionarily advanced—that atheism is the belief anyone would come to if he merely examined the scientific facts, all other belief systems being vestiges of Stone Age superstition on a par with moon worship and child sacrifice. But it’s not. Get the facts out in the open and it becomes pretty obvious. Theism stands. Atheism falls. Because there really is a God who created the universe.
The smart atheists seem to know this. Tom Gilson invited David Silverman, president of American Atheists, to co-sponsor an open, reasoned debate at the Reason Rally which will take place this weekend. He declined. William Lane Craig invited Richard Dawkins to debate. He declined.
Nevertheless, unreason notwithstanding, the Reason Rally will go on this weekend. Take it as an invitation to reason together with the non-theists in our midst. Theism is up to the challenge. Atheism isn’t.
Related Readings
This post first appeared at Robin’s Readings and Reflections, where I will be guest blogging on occasion. Check it out.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FY2I76
5 Reasons Why I Believe in God
2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian G. Chilton
Last week, notable physicist Stephen Hawking died. Hawking was known for his brilliant work as a physicist, especially working with black holes, the big bang, and for his exploration of the so-called Theory of Everything (a theory that is purported to hold the glue to the four major laws of the universe). In addition, Hawking was known for one additional thing: his atheism. This has led many people to inquire, “Why does it seem that so many notable scientists are atheists?” While I do not believe that all notable scientists are atheistic in their worldview, this does lead one to ask if there are any good reasons for believing in God’s existence.
While I do not claim to hold the brilliance of Hawking, I was one who was led into the mire of agnosticism earlier in life. Tampering with a theistic-leaning-agnosticism, I was open to the idea that God could exist, I only didn’t know if there were good reasons for accepting God’s existence. Furthermore, if God existed, I wasn’t sure that one could know that God was personable and that he could be known in any certain religion. While the latter questions are things I will cover in later articles, suffice it for now, one needs to ask, “Are there good reasons for believing in God?” Among other issues, five major arguments or evidence, if you will, led me to a strong belief in God’s existence. Counting down from the fifth to the first, the following are the issues that led me to become a strong theist.
#5: Moral Argument
If you really think deeply about it, isn’t is strange that the strongest proponents of social change and ethical behavior are those who do not hold to God’s existence? I am certainly not saying that Christians have not led to social change. Charles Spurgeon and John Wesley both vocally opposed slavery. Nevertheless, it is strange that atheists fight for social change because their worldview does not support objective morality. I am not saying that atheists cannot be good people. I have known many fantastic people who adhere to atheism. I am saying that atheism cannot sustain objective morality because if God does not exist, then all of humanity is nothing but random molecules in motion.
If morality is objective—that is, there are things that can be considered right and wrong, then there must be an objective lawgiver. In essence, I have described the moral argument. Think about a speed limit sign. You are driving down the road, and you see a sign with the big numbers 35 on the white rectangular sign. You may not agree that the speed limit should be 35 miles-per-hour. Nevertheless, some lawgiver did. The sign did not magically appear. Rather, someone decided that the particular stretch of the road upon which you are traveling should only maintain that speed. If there are morals, then someone must have set them in place. In addition, morality points to the importance of life. All of this is only true if God exists.
#4: Consciousness Argument (NDEs).
Consciousness argues for God’s existence, especially if the mind is shown to be separate from the body. That is, if there is an immaterial self (otherwise known as the soul), then spiritual entities exist. The mounting evidence in favor of near-death experiences (i.e., NDEs) demonstrates the reality of the spiritual self. While space does not allow for me to fully engage with this issue here, plenty of material is available which describes the reality of these experiences and how it demolishes the concept of materialism (i.e., the idea that only the physical world exists and nothing else). While NDEs do not necessarily prove the existence of God, it does show that the idea of the Holy Spirit, angels, demons, and the like are not as far-fetched as the skeptic might think.
#3: Design (or Teleological) Argument.
My dad used to have a saying that went, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and flies like a duck; then chances are likely that you are looking at a duck.” The more I learn about the universe, the more I understand how much intricate design the universe possesses. The universe is full of design. Everything from the way gravity and the universal forces operate[1] to the vastness of the universe itself[2] illustrates not only the design found in the universe but that the universe was designed to support sentient beings like us. If something appears to be designed, then it is logical to infer that its design and structure came from a designer.
#2: Cosmological Argument.
The idea of a causal relationship is at the center of science. That is, every effect must have an underlying cause. This is the heartbeat of science. Yet, this heartbeat seemingly flatlines with the atheist notion that the universe somehow spontaneously created itself. Cosmological arguments for God indicate that if the universe had a beginning, then it is rational to imply that a Creator brought forth creation into existence. For creation to bring itself into existence, creation must be considered to be a conscious self-existent thing. How so? Any time a process of decisional action is placed upon a certain thing, that thing is anthropomorphized. That is to say; we make that thing alive. Evolutionists often do this with the process of evolution itself with claims like “Evolution decided this or that.” But, how can a mindless process decide anything?
William Lane Craig has popularized a brilliant argument called the kalam cosmological argument which goes as follows:
“1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.”[3]
“But, wait,” one may infer, “if there is a multiverse, doesn’t this get around the problem?” Unfortunately, for the materialist, the Borg-Vilenkin-Guth theorem “closed the door on that possibility.”[4] All physical universes, including a multiverse, must have a finite past, meaning that even a multiverse must have a beginning. Thus, one is left with one of two possibilities: either eternal non-existent nothingness (which means the absence of anything including vacuums) brought about something from nothing, or an eternal Someone brought something from nothing. For me, the latter is MUCH more intellectually satisfying.
#1: Information Argument
The last argument is not an official argument. Rather, it is something I call the information argument. It came to me that any process or program must contain information. Information requires a programmer. The universe contains programs and processes that require information. Therefore, the universe must have a Programmer—that is, God. I am not an evolutionist. Nevertheless, even if evolution were true, it seems to me that this process could not have created itself. How does mindless nothingness come up with anything anyhow? It is nothing, and it is impersonal. So, how does mindless nothingness do anything? It can’t. Consider the information found in DNA and the information found in the processes and programs of the universe. To claim that it came from nothing and no one and simply arranged itself would be like Luigi telling Mario that their virtual world needed no programmers. It is utterly absurd!
A cumulative case considering these five pieces of information and much more show—at least to my mind—the absolute necessity of God. I have to agree with Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. How true!
Notes
[1] Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 98-110.
[2] Hugh Ross argues that even the vastness of the universe is important for two reasons: the production of life-essential elements and the rate of expansion. See Hugh Ross, Why the Universe is the Way It Is (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 33-34.
[3] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 111.
[4] Ibid., 150.
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Ghlshg
Failed Arguments Against Miracles
PodcastPodcast: Play in new window
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS
If miracles are not possible, then Christianity cannot be true. Many across the centuries have tried to bring arguments against miracles. Maybe the most famous advocate against the possibility of miracles is David Hume. Almost three hundred years after his death, Hume’s argument is still being taught in philosophy courses around the world today. In this podcast, Frank shows why Hume’s argument fails and why other arguments against miracles tend to be circular.
Un universo de alguien: una crítica de Lawrence Krauss
EspañolPor Peter S. Williams
Un universo de alguien:
Contra Lawrence M. Krauss “Un universo de la nada”:
¿Por qué hay algo en lugar de nada? (Free Press, 2012)
– Peter S. Williams (MA, MPhil); Filósofo residente en el Damaris Trust; Profesor asistente de comunicación y visión del mundo en la escuela de periodismo y comunicación de Gimlekollen en Noruega.
Un universo de la nada: ¿por qué hay algo en lugar de nada? (Free Press, 2012), del cosmólogo Lawrence M. Krauss, ha sido alabado por otros ateos como A.C. Grayling, Sam Harris y Neil deGrasse Tyson. Según Richard Dawkins: “El título significa exactamente lo que dice. Y lo que dice es devastador”[1]. Estoy de acuerdo en que lo que dice este libro sobre el tema de por qué algo existe en lugar de nada (que no es mucho) es devastador, pero solo para la credibilidad intelectual de Krauss y sus partidarios. Krauss pasa la mayor parte de su libro redefiniendo “nada” en términos de algo cada vez más incorpóreo (del “espacio vacío” a las “leyes de la física”), como si esto justificara la conclusión de que la literal nada podría ser la causa del cosmos. Eso es como argumentar que, dado que es posible vivir con menos y menos alimentos cada día, debe ser posible vivir sin comida.
Krauss admite que “no simpatiza con la convicción de que la creación requiere un creador”[2] (una convicción que afirma es “en la base de todas las religiones del mundo”[3] — aunque esto sería una sorpresa para los budistas que no creen en Dios). Por supuesto, es cierto por definición que la creación requiere un creador (ser un creador es crear una creación, y ser una creación debe ser creada por un creador). Lo que Krauss quiere decir es que no simpatiza con la idea de que el cosmos sea una creación, porque eso implicaría un Creador: “No puedo probar que Dios no existe, pero preferiría vivir en un universo sin uno”[4]. Este tipo de confusión es sintomático de la actitud desdeñosa de Krauss hacia la filosofía, un “sesgo intelectual” confeso[5] que lo llevó a crear un libro con éxito de ventas plagado de confusiones, circunscrito por una argumentación circular y socavado por la auto contradicción.
Krauss reconoce que “nadie más que los fundamentalistas más ardientes sugerirían que todos y cada uno de los objetos [materiales] son… creados intencionalmente por una inteligencia divina…”[6] y que “muchos laicos y científicos se deleitan en nuestra capacidad para explicar cómo los copos de nieve y los arco iris pueden aparecer espontáneamente, sobre la base de leyes simples y elegantes de la física”[7]. Sin embargo, incluso dando el máximo debido a las capacidades causales inherentes del mundo natural, queda una pregunta abierta: ¿por qué existe el mundo natural? De hecho, como reconoce Krauss: “Uno puede preguntar, y muchos lo hacen, ¿De dónde vienen las leyes de la física?”[8]. Siguiendo esta línea de pensamiento, Krauss reconoce que “muchas personas reflexivas son conducidas a la aparente necesidad de la Primera Causa, como Platón, Tomás de Aquino o la moderna Iglesia Católica Romana podría decirlo, y por lo tanto suponer algún ser divino: un creador de todo lo que hay…”[9]. Como argumenta Dallas Willard: “El carácter dependiente de todos los estados físicos, junto con la completitud de la serie de dependencias subyacentes a la existencia de cualquier estado físico dado, lógicamente implica al menos un estado auto existente, y por lo tanto un estado no físico del ser”[10].
Existen, por supuesto, varias versiones independientes del argumento de “primera causa” o “cosmológico”. Lo más relevante en el contexto del libro de Krauss es claramente la forma leibnitziana del argumento, defendida por filósofos contemporáneos como Bruce R. Reichenbach[11], Richard Taylor[12] y William Lane Craig[13]. Este tipo de argumento se puede poner de la siguiente manera:
1) Todo lo que existe tiene una explicación de su existencia, ya sea en la necesidad de su propia naturaleza o en una causa externa.
2) El universo existe.
3) Por lo tanto, el universo tiene una explicación de su existencia.
4) Si el universo tiene una explicación de su existencia, esa explicación es Dios.
5) Por lo tanto, la explicación de la existencia del universo es Dios.
Dado que este es un argumento deductivo lógicamente válido, y dado que el universo obviamente existe, los no teístas deben negar las premisas 1 o 4 para evitar racionalmente la existencia de Dios. Sin embargo, muchos filósofos piensan que la Premisa 1, una versión del “principio de la razón suficiente”, es simplemente evidente por sí misma. Imagina encontrar una pelota translúcida en el suelo del bosque mientras camina. Naturalmente, te preguntarás cómo llegó a estar allí. Si un compañero de excursionismo dice: “Simplemente existe inexplicablemente. ¡No te preocupes por eso!”. No lo tomarías en serio. Supongamos que aumentamos el tamaño de la pelota para que sea tan grande como el planeta. Eso no elimina la necesidad de una explicación. Supongamos que era del tamaño del universo. El mismo problema. En cuanto a la premisa 4: “Si el universo tiene una explicación de su existencia, esa explicación es Dios”, esto es sinónimo con la afirmación atea estándar de que si Dios no existe, entonces el universo no tiene explicación de su existencia. La única alternativa al teísmo es afirmar que el universo tiene una explicación de su existencia en la necesidad de su propia naturaleza. Pero esto sería un paso muy radical (y no puedo pensar en ningún ateo contemporáneo que lo tome). Después de todo, es coherente imaginar un universo hecho a partir de una colección completamente diferente de quarks/campos/cuerdas que la colección que realmente existe; pero tal universo sería un universo diferente, entonces los universos claramente no existen necesariamente. De hecho, Krauss invoca la posibilidad de otros universos (“Los teóricos han estimado que tal vez haya 10500 universos tetra dimensionales consistentes posibles diferentes que podrían resultar de una única teoría de cuerdas de diez dimensiones”[14]) y esta posibilidad implica que los universos no existen por una necesidad de su propia naturaleza[15].
Supongamos que le pido que me preste un determinado libro, pero usted dice: “No tengo una copia en este momento, pero le pediré a mi amigo que me preste su copia y luego se la prestaré”. Supongamos que su amigo le dice lo mismo a usted, y así sucesivamente. Dos cosas están claras. Primero, si el proceso de pedir prestado el libro continúa ad infinitum, nunca tendré el libro. En segundo lugar, si obtengo el libro, el proceso que me llevó a conseguirlo no puede haber continuado ad infinitum. En alguna parte de la línea de solicitudes para tomar prestado el libro, alguien tenía el libro sin tener que pedirlo prestado. Asimismo, argumenta Richard Purtill, considera cualquier realidad contingente:
“los mismos dos principios se aplican. Si el proceso de todo para obtener su existencia de otra cosa llegara al infinito, entonces la cosa en cuestión nunca [tendría] existencia. Y si la cosa tiene… existencia, entonces el proceso no ha llegado al infinito. Había algo que tenía existencia sin tener que recibirlo de otra cosa…”[16].
Un ser necesario que explica toda la realidad física no puede en sí mismo ser una realidad física. Las únicas posibilidades restantes son un objeto abstracto o una mente inmaterial. Pero los objetos abstractos (incluso otorgando su existencia) son por definición causalmente impotentes. Por lo tanto, la explicación del universo físico es necesariamente una mente existente y trascendente.
Frente al argumento cosmológico, Krauss busca la vieja y cansada objeción en la parte superior de la guía neo-ateísta:
la declaración de una Primera Causa aún deja abierta la pregunta: “¿Quién creó al creador?” Después de todo, ¿cuál es la diferencia entre discutir a favor de un creador eternamente existente, versus un universo eternamente existente sin uno?[17]
En primer lugar, aun suponiendo que la deducción (no mera “declaración”) de una Primera Causa dejara abierta la pregunta secundaria de “¿quién creó al creador?”, esto no proporcionaría ninguna base sobre la cual objetar el argumento cosmológico. La suposición implícita de que una explicación no puede ser la mejor explicación de un conjunto de datos dados a menos que uno tenga disponible una explicación de la explicación (y así sucesivamente) claramente implica una regresión realmente infinita de explicaciones que nunca pueden ser satisfechas. La adhesión a una suposición explicativa tan regresiva haría imposible la ciencia; que es una razón por la cual el argumento de la causa principal es justificado al rechazar la noción de una regresión explicativa realmente infinita. Segundo, el argumento de la Primera Causa no deja abierta la pregunta secundaria de “¿quién creó al creador?”. Krauss simplemente plantea la pregunta en contra del concepto de una no creada Primera Causa, un ser que (a diferencia del universo físico) tiene una explicación de su existencia en la necesidad de su propia naturaleza.
Krauss continúa fusionando el contraste entre las realidades causadas, por un lado, y la Primera Causa, por otro lado, con un contraste vago entre un “universo eternamente existente” y un “creador eternamente existente” (¿significa que Krauss pretende abrazar la posibilidad de una regresión temporal realmente infinita para el cosmos? ¿Está él atento a los debates actuales sobre los diversos modelos de la relación de Dios con el tiempo? Uno no sospecha). Entonces encona la situación al notar que “una regresión infinita de alguna fuerza creadora que se engendra a sí misma… no nos acerca más a lo que da origen al universo”[18]. Por supuesto, un kluge de incoherencias no nos va a ayudar aquí; pero este kludge no guarda ningún parecido relevante con la noción de una Primera causa no causada que creó el universo un tiempo finito atrás.
Krauss objeta que “Definir la pregunta [de los orígenes] argumentando que el dinero se detiene con Dios puede parecer obviar el problema de la regresión infinita, pero aquí invoco mi mantra: El universo es como es, nos guste o no”[19]. Tenga en cuenta que “argumentar que la responsabilidad es de Dios” es, por definición, no una cuestión de simplemente “definir la cuestión” de los orígenes. Argumentar y definir no son actividades sinónimas. Tenga en cuenta también que el argumento de la causa principal hace “obviar el problema de la regresión infinita”. Nótese, finalmente, que el atractivo de Krauss a su mantra de que “el universo es como es, nos guste o no” es un intento desastrosamente equivocado de eludir la lógica del argumento cosmológico al lanzar supuestas aserciones científicas sobre la lógica.
De manera típica, neo-atea, Krauss tiene poco tiempo para la filosofía[20]. Krauss incluso afirma que: “El único conocimiento que tenemos es de experimentos… el único conocimiento que tenemos sobre el mundo es empírico”[21]. Como reflexiona el filósofo ateo de la ciencia Massimo Pigliucci:
No sé qué les pasa a los físicos estos días. Solía ser que eran un grupo intelectualmente sofisticado, con gente como Einstein y Bohr haciendo no solo investigación científica brillante, sino también interesada, respetuosa y versada en otras ramas del conocimiento, particularmente la filosofía. En estos días, es mucho más probable encontrar físicos como Steven Weinberg o Stephen Hawking, que alegremente rechazan la filosofía por las razones equivocadas, y obviamente por una combinación de profunda ignorancia y soberbia (los dos a menudo van juntos, como yo estoy seguro de que Platón felizmente lo señalaría). El más reciente así es Lawrence Krauss, de la Universidad Estatal de Arizona[22].
La falta de respeto de Krauss por la filosofía subyace y por lo tanto socava todo su proyecto. Por ejemplo, argumenta que, si bien la cuestión de los orígenes últimos “generalmente se enmarca como una cuestión filosófica o religiosa, es ante todo una pregunta sobre el mundo natural, y por lo tanto el lugar apropiado para intentar resolverlo, ante todo, es con la ciencia”[23]. Pero esto es para combinar todas las preguntas sobre el mundo natural con las preguntas científicas sobre el mundo natural. De hecho, puede haber preguntas filosóficas sobre el mundo natural, y la pregunta sobre los orígenes últimos es una de ellas. Tratar de responder a esta pregunta filosófica mientras se deja de lado la filosofía conduce a resultados predecibles.
Por ejemplo, y volviendo al mantra de Krauss, por supuesto el universo “es como es, nos guste o no”. Sin embargo, una de las formas en que el universo es (“nos guste o no”) que se ajusta a las leyes básicas de la lógica. Uno podría desear un círculo cuadrado, uno podría preferir que 1+1 sea igual a 7, pero sabemos que el universo no lo va a complacer porque estos conceptos son auto contradictorios. De hecho, uno no puede negar la proposición de que “la realidad se ajusta a las leyes básicas de la lógica” sin depender de la conformidad de la realidad con las leyes básicas de la lógica en el proceso mismo de emitir la propia negación. Ciertamente, no se puede basar tal negación en la afirmación de que “El universo es como es, nos guste o no”; esta afirmación es en sí misma simplemente una sustitución de la ley lógica del medio excluido. Argumentar contra la proposición de que la realidad es lógicamente coherente apelando a la afirmación lógicamente coherente de que “El universo es como es, nos guste o no” es lógicamente incoherente[24]
Krauss opina que “sin ciencia, cualquier definición es solo palabras”[25]. Después de lamentar brevemente el destino de nuestros antepasados tratando de hablar antes de la invención de la ciencia, uno podría señalar que Krauss ha reinventado la rueda chueca del positivismo lógico (completa con su extinta teoría verificacionista del significado lingüístico) y su afirmación de que “sin ciencia”, cualquier definición es solo palabras que carecen de sus estructuras. Tal incoherencia lógica es una entre muchas razones por las cuales, como Bruce R. Reichenbach comentó en 1972: “La era ha pasado cuando todas las afirmaciones o argumentos metafísicos simplemente pueden descartarse como tontos o sin sentido, ya que no cumplen un criterio preestablecido de verificabilidad”[26]
Krauss ha sido visto en el abrazo del verificacionismo antes. Randy Everist observa que “el debate [de marzo de 2011] entre Lawrence Krauss y William Lane Craig puso de manifiesto algunas de las afirmaciones de cientificismo en la Nueva comunidad atea. En cierto modo, recuerda mucho al positivismo lógico con A.J. Ayer y los antiguos ateos de principios y mediados del siglo XX”[27]. Durante el tiempo de “Pregunta y respuesta”, Krauss afirmó que “la ciencia hace lo que hace, y determina el sinsentido de los sentidos mediante la prueba“[28]. Un asombrado Craig respondió que Krauss:
parece sostener una epistemología que dice que solo debemos creer en lo que puede ser probado científicamente, y … que en sí mismo es una posición auto contradictoria, porque no se puede demostrar científicamente que solo se debe creer en lo que se puede demostrar científicamente. Entonces, cuando dice que “distingue el sentido del sinsentido”, es el verificacionismo de la vieja línea, ¿no es así?, y el positivismo, que salió con los años 30 y 40. Es una posición contraproducente[29].
Como Craig comentó después: “Todavía estoy asombrado… cuando entro en un debate con alguien como Lawrence Krauss, sobre cómo la epistemología del verificacionismo antiguo y el positivismo lógico todavía arroja su larga sombra sobre la cultura occidental”[30]
En la tradición verificacionista, Krauss se queja de que “la religión y la teología… enturbian las aguas… al centrarse en cuestiones de la nada sin proporcionar ninguna definición del término basada en evidencia empírica”[31] — ¡pero, por supuesto, Krauss no puede proporcionar ninguna definición de este criterio de significado basado en evidencia empírica! Tampoco el criterio de significado de Krauss es tautológicamente verdadero (en marcado contraste con el principio tautológico de que “de la nada, nada viene”, a lo que Krauss se opone). Por lo tanto, Krauss se enorgullece de su incapacidad de prestar atención a la filosofía cuando se trata de definir los términos, y este fracaso convierte a la gran mayoría de Un universo de la nada en una búsqueda inútil en la que gasta todas menos 4 páginas (ver páginas 174-178) que abordan preguntas además de la pregunta fundamental de si uno puede obtener un universo de la nada. Como se lamenta el científico ateo Jerry Coyne: “Gran parte del libro era no sobre el origen del universo, pero se ocupó de otros asuntos, como la energía oscura y similares, que ya se habían cubierto en otras obras populares sobre física. De hecho, gran parte del libro de Krauss se sintió como tácticas engañosas”[32]. Esta objeción se desliza fuera de Krauss como el agua en la espalda de un pato:
Nada molesta más a los filósofos y teólogos que están en desacuerdo conmigo que la idea de que yo, como científico, no entiendo realmente “nada”. (Estoy tentado de replicar aquí que los teólogos son expertos en nada). “Nada”, insisten, no es cualquiera de las cosas que discuto. Nada es “no ser”, en un sentido vago y mal definido… Pero… seguramente “nada” es tan físico como “algo”, especialmente si debe definirse como la “ausencia de algo”. Entonces nos corresponde comprender la naturaleza física de estas dos cantidades. Y sin ciencia, cualquier definición es solo palabras[33]
Entrevistado por el compañero neo-ateísta Sam Harris, Krauss asevera vergonzosamente:
el famoso reclamo, “de la nada, nada viene” [es] espurio [porque] la ciencia ha hecho irrelevante el debate de algo de la nada. Ha cambiado por completo nuestra concepción de las palabras “algo” y “nada”… “algo” y “nada” son conceptos físicos y, por lo tanto, son propiamente el dominio de la ciencia, no de la teología o la filosofía[34]
Por desgracia para Krauss, la famosa afirmación de que “de la nada, nada viene” (una reclamación que se remonta a Parménides de Elea en el siglo 5 antes de Cristo) es claramente cierto por definición. Para existir o para ser es ser una cosa u otra, tener una o más propiedades. “Nada”, que es un término de negación universal, es “nada”, es decir, no es algo de ningún tipo. “Nada” no tiene ninguna propiedad (ya que no hay nada allí para tener alguna propiedad). Por definición, entonces, “nada” no tiene ninguna propiedad capaz de hacer nada – ciertamente de no crear algo. Por lo tanto, nada puede “salir de” (es decir, ser causado por) nada. Contra Krauss, no hay nada “vago y mal definido” sobre esto (y ni siquiera el criterio vergonzante y auto contradictorio del significado va a beneficiar a Krauss en este momento).
Además, si Krauss quiere decir que niega el principio evidente de razón suficiente y afirma que las cosas pueden simplemente existir o aparecer sin causa o explicación de su existencia, entonces ha abandonado la metafísica seria (de hecho, rechaza explícitamente la metafísica en el nombre del cientifismo). En tal teoría no hay literalmente ninguna razón por la cual el universo existe en lugar de solo un juego de té (y, al contrario de la observación empírica, no hay razón por la cual los juegos de té no fluctúen y desaparezcan al azar sin ningún motivo).
En cuanto a la afirmación de Krauss de que ciertamente “nada” es tan físico como “algo” — por un lado, esto es tan drásticamente idiosincrásico que uno apenas sabe por dónde empezar; mientras que, por otro lado, esta afirmación revela por qué Un universo de la nada es una verdadera escuela de pistas falsas. Enfrentado con la cuestión filosófica de los orígenes últimos, Krauss simplemente cambia el tema para discutir la cuestión científica de cómo una cosa natural (por ejemplo, el Big Bang) podría haber sido causada por alguna otra cosa natural (por ejemplo, un multiverso). Krauss puede quejarse de que “la religión y la teología… enturbia las aguas… centrándose en cuestiones de la nada sin proporcionar ninguna definición del término basado en evidencia empírica”[35] — pero cualquier definición de nada “basada en evidencia empírica” sería una definición de “nada” que no tiene nada que ver con las cuestiones filosóficas de por qué hay algo más que nada, o si la existencia de un ámbito empírico implica o no se explica mejor por un orden de realidad no empírica (metafísico). Por lo tanto, la página 149 de Un Universo de la Nada contiene la franca admisión de que el tipo de “nada” que Krauss ha estado discutiendo hasta ahora es:
la versión más simple de nada, es decir, el espacio vacío. Por el momento, asumiré que el espacio existe, sin nada en absoluto, y que las leyes de la física también existen. Una vez más, me doy cuenta de que en las versiones revisadas de la nada que aquellos que desean redefinir continuamente la palabra para que ninguna definición científica sea práctica, esta versión de la nada no es una razón seria. Sin embargo, sospecho que, en los tiempos de Platón y Tomás de Aquino, cuando reflexionaron sobre por qué había algo en lugar de nada, el espacio vacío sin nada era probablemente una buena aproximación de lo que estaban pensando[36]
Por supuesto, su Krauss que está redefiniendo los términos aquí (además, la única manera en que “algo” y “nada” podrían ser “conceptos físicos”, como afirma Krauss, es sobre la asunción de una metafísica fisicalista, una suposición que hace que una petición de principio al argumento de Krauss en contra de la necesidad por la pregunta del Creador). En lo que los filósofos llaman “lenguaje ordinario”, la nevera del estudiante pobre puede estar “llena de nada”, y no contiene “nada más que espacio vacío”; pero es extremadamente ingenuo esperar que el debate metafísico preciso se desarrolle completamente en “lenguaje ordinario”. Como escribe William E. Caroll: “El deseo de separar las ciencias naturales de la supuesta contaminación de los” juegos de palabras “de la filosofía y la teología no es nuevo; ahora, como siempre, revela un juicio filosófico empobrecido”[37]
Cada disciplina (incluida la ciencia) tiene su propia terminología técnica con su propia historia de uso que debe ser entendida por cualquiera que desee ser parte de la conversación en curso dentro de esa disciplina. La antipatía de Krauss hacia la filosofía significa que comete errores en el debate metafísico sobre los orígenes como un laico mal preparado. Krauss puede “sospechar que, en tiempos de Platón y de Aquino, cuando reflexionaban sobre por qué había algo en lugar de nada, el espacio vacío sin nada era probablemente una buena aproximación de lo que estaban pensando”[38]. Pero estas sospechas están informadas por su propio prejuicio antifilosófico más que por los hechos históricos. Aristóteles ingeniosamente no definió nada como “en qué piensan las rocas”[39]. El punto es, por supuesto, que las rocas no piensan en nada en lo absoluto. Robert J. Spitzer observa que:
Parménides y Platón… usan el término “nada” para significar “nada” (es decir, “aquello que no existe”). No se debe pensar que nada es un vacío o un hueco (que es dimensional y orientable, donde puedes tener más o menos espacio); y ciertamente no es una ley física. En la medida en que las leyes de la física tienen efectos físicos reales, deben considerarse como algo físico[40]
Paul Copan informa:
Agustín argumentó que dado que solo Dios es el Ser, quiso hacer existir lo que antes no existía. Entonces él no es un simple modelador de la materia primordial eterna y sin forma: ” No trabajaste como lo hace un artesano humano, haciendo una cosa de otra cosa como su mente lo dirige… Tu Palabra sola creó [el cielo y la tierra]”[41]
Del mismo modo, cuando Tomás de Aquino escribe acerca de “nada” en su argumento de la “tercera vía”, ciertamente parece tener en mente el concepto tradicional de la nada absoluta:
lo que no existe empieza a existir solamente a través de algo que ya existe. Por lo tanto, si en algún momento no existiera nada, hubiera sido imposible que algo hubiera comenzado a existir; y así ahora nada existiría, lo cual es absurdo[42]
De hecho, el propio Krauss se refiere en otro lugar a la definición ontológica clásica de nada como “la ausencia de algo”…[43] Krauss admite en la página 152 de Un universo de la nada que “sería falso proponer que el espacio vacío dotado de energía, que impulsa la inflación, realmente no sea nada“[44]. En la página 172, Krauss reconoce: “Todos los ejemplos que he proporcionado hasta ahora implican la creación de algo de lo que uno debería estar tentado a considerar como nada, pero las reglas para esa creación, es decir, las leyes de la física, fueron preestablecidas. ¿De dónde vienen las reglas?”[45]. Así Stephen Hawking pregunta:
Incluso si solo hay una teoría unificada posible, es solo un conjunto de reglas y ecuaciones. ¿Qué es lo que inhala fuego en las ecuaciones y crea un universo para describir? El enfoque habitual de la ciencia de construir un modelo matemático no puede responder a las preguntas de por qué debería haber un universo para describir el modelo. ¿Por qué el universo se toma la molestia de existir?[46]
La pregunta de Hawking — evitada por Krauss (ver páginas 142 y 172-174) — deja de lado la cuestión de qué ontología se puede atribuir a las leyes físicas en la supuesta ausencia de realidad física para describirlas o alguna mente que las conciba. Como dice el ateo Peter Atkins: “Debes darte cuenta de que las leyes físicas, que son resúmenes de la conducta observada, comienzan a existir a medida que el universo llega a la existencia…”[47]
En la página 174 de Universo de la nada, Krauss todavía no se ha acercado a la pregunta del millón de dólares: “Me he centrado en la creación de algo a partir de un espacio vacío preexistente o en la creación de espacio vacío sin espacio alguno… Tengo sin embargo, no abordado, directamente… lo que algunos pueden ver como la cuestión de la Primera Causa[48]. Ninguno de los venerables filósofos mencionados por Krauss habría confundido ninguna de sus especulaciones sobre el cosmos que surge de una realidad naturalista preexistente u otra, con lo que Leibniz llamó “la primera pregunta” de “por qué existe algo más que nada”. Tampoco Sam Harris, quien en el curso de una entrevista con Krauss comentó:
Usted ha descrito tres gradaciones de la nada: el espacio vacío, la ausencia de espacio y la ausencia de leyes físicas. Me parece que esta última condición -la ausencia de leyes que pudieran haber causado o restringido el surgimiento de la materia y el espacio –tiempo– es realmente un caso de “nada” en el sentido más estricto. Me parece genuinamente incomprensible que cualquier cosa (leyes, energía, etc.) pueda brotar de ella[49]
David Albert, un filósofo ateo de la física de la Universidad de Columbia, es devastador en su reseña de Un universo de la nada:
Las leyes fundamentales de la naturaleza… no tienen ninguna relación con las cuestiones de dónde provienen las cosas elementales, o de por qué el mundo debería haber consistido en las cosas elementales particulares que hace, como en contra de algo más, o a nada en absoluto. Las leyes físicas fundamentales de las que Krauss habla en Un universo de la nada – las leyes de las teorías cuánticas de campo relativistas – no son una excepción a esto. La… materia física elemental del mundo, de acuerdo con las presentaciones estándar de las teorías cuánticas de campo relativistas, consiste (como era de esperar) en campos cuánticos relativistas. Y las leyes fundamentales de esta teoría… no tienen nada que decir sobre el tema de dónde provienen esos campos, o de por qué el mundo debería haber consistido en los tipos particulares de campos que hace, o de por qué debería haber consistido en campos, o de por qué debería haber habido un mundo en primer lugar. Y punto. Caso cerrado. Fin de la historia… Krauss parece estar pensando que estos estados de vacío equivalen a la versión teórica de campo cuántico relativista de no ser nada físico en absoluto. Y tiene un argumento, o cree que lo hace, de que las leyes de las teorías cuánticas de campo relativistas implican que los estados de vacío son inestables. Y eso, en pocas palabras, es la cuenta que él propone de por qué debería haber algo en lugar de nada. Pero eso no está bien. Los estados de vacío teórico de campos cuánticos relativistas, no menos que jirafas o refrigeradores o sistemas solares, son arreglos particulares de material físico elemental. El verdadero equivalente teórico-campo-cuantitativo relativista de que no haya ningún material físico en absoluto no es esta o esa disposición particular de los campos – ¡lo que es (obviamente, e ineluctablemente, y por el contrario) es la simple ausencia de los campos! El hecho de que algunos arreglos de campos correspondan a la existencia de partículas y otros no, no es más misterioso que el hecho de que algunos de los posibles arreglos de mis dedos correspondan a la existencia de un puño y algunos no. Y el hecho de que las partículas pueden aparecer y desaparecer, con el tiempo, a medida que esos campos se reordenan, no es más misterioso que el hecho de que los puños puedan aparecer y desaparecer con el tiempo a medida que mis dedos se reordenen. Y ninguno de estos golpeteos… asciende a algo ni remotamente en el vecindario de una creación de la nada[50]
En una demostración reveladora de arrogancia intelectual, Krauss respondió públicamente a la crítica de Albert diciendo que “él es un filósofo, no un físico, así que lo descarté”[51] (de hecho, mientras David Albert es el Profesor Frederick E. Woodbridge de Filosofía en la Universidad de Columbia, tiene un doctorado en Física Teórica de la Universidad Rockefeller).
Cuando finalmente Krauss dirige su atención a la pregunta sobre el título de su libro, reconoce “dos posibilidades”. O bien… algún ser divino que no esté sujeto a las leyes o surgen por algún mecanismo menos sobrenatural”[52]. Por un lado, cualquier “mecanismo” naturalista debe involucrar a alguna ley física u otra (y, por lo tanto, uno pensaría, alguna realidad física descrita por esa ley), que proporciona nada más que una nueva forma de plantear la cuestión fundamental de los orígenes: “¿Por qué existe esta ley?”. Por otro lado, si el “mecanismo” que Krauss tiene en mente no es naturalista, entonces Krauss se confiesa que solo le queda una opción: Un universo de alguien .En los cuernos de este dilema, la ventanilla de emergencia de Krauss es un intento auto contradictorio de utilizar la autoridad de la ciencia para negar la autoridad de la lógica:
La “regla” metafísica, que se mantiene como una convicción férrea por aquellos con quienes he debatido el tema de la creación, es decir que “de la nada nada viene” no tiene fundamento en la ciencia[53]
De hecho, ninguna de las leyes de la lógica (todas las cuales deben preponerse bajo el dolor de la incoherencia) tiene un “fundamento en la ciencia”; pero ¡¿y qué?! “Argumentando que es evidente por sí mismo, inquebrantable e inexpugnable [que “de la nada, nada viene”], alega Krauss, representa “una falta de voluntad para reconocer el simple hecho de que la naturaleza puede ser más inteligente que los filósofos o los teólogos”[54]. ¡De ningún modo! Más bien, representa una voluntad de reconocer el simple hecho de que la lógica es innegable y que las proposiciones incoherentes son necesariamente falsas. Como dice William Lane Craig: “Si la alternativa al teísmo es negar la lógica, bueno, me parece que el no teísta está realmente en graves problemas allí; nunca más podrán decir que los teístas son irracionales por creer lo que creemos”[55]
Aferrándose a una última gota lógica (nótese que se involucra en el doble estándar de responsabilizar a los teístas de la lógica y exime al ateísmo del mismo deber), Krauss hace una objeción que solo sirve para revelar su incapacidad para comprender lo que significa el doctrina de la creación “ex nihilo”:
Aquellos que argumentan que de la nada nada viene parecen perfectamente satisfechos con la noción quijotesca de que de alguna manera Dios puede evitar esto. Pero una vez más, si uno requiere que la noción de verdadera nada requiera ni siquiera el potencial para la existencia, entonces seguramente Dios no puede obrar sus maravillas, porque si Él causa existencia de la no existencia, debe haber existido el potencial para la existencia[56]
Aquellos que argumentan que “de la nada nada viene” no están contentos con la noción incoherente de que “Dios puede evitar esto”. Mientras que la verdadera nada, por supuesto, requiere ni siquiera el potencial para existir (debido a que cualquier potencial debe basarse en algo real), los teístas no creen que Dios creando el universo es un ejemplo de algo que viene de la nada, ya que por supuesto creen que Dios existe (necesariamente) y que el potencial para la existencia de todo fuera de Dios existe en Dios.
Krauss obviamente está trabajando bajo la falsa impresión de que la creación ex nihilo significa “creación de la nada”, como si “nada” fuera una especie de algo usado de algún modo por un Dios inexistente en la creación del cosmos. Sin embargo, para crear ex nihilo es, por definición, no una cuestión de reorganizar cosas preexistentes, y ciertamente no de reordenar una “nada” preexistente, sino más bien de organizar para que hayan cosas de algún tipo u otro (fuera de Dios) en primer lugar. En otras palabras, la doctrina de la creación ex nihilo distingue entre crear mediante la reorganización de “cosas” preexistentes (por ejemplo, el tipo de creación concebida por Platón para su “Demiurgo”) y crear una nueva forma de realidad (como un universo) sin usar “cosas preexistentes” (por ejemplo, Génesis 1:1)[57]. Los filósofos llaman al segundo tipo de creación “creatio ex nihilo“, que significa “creación [por un creador], no de elementos preexistentes”. La creencia en un ser necesariamente existente que fundamenta el potencial para la existencia de cosas contingentes y que actualiza ese potencial mediante un acto de omnipotencia libremente elegido es una respuesta lógicamente coherente a la pregunta de por qué existe el universo físico. Además, esta respuesta está respaldada por el argumento cosmológico.
Frente a la respuesta lógicamente coherente respaldada por el argumento cosmológico de Leibniz, a Krauss le gustaría cambiar el tema: “Lo que es realmente útil no es reflexionar sobre esta cuestión…”[58]. Como resultado, produce un libro que está abrumadoramente dedicado a preguntas además del de la portada. El prejuicio antifilosófico de Krauss lo lleva a adoptar una posición verificacionalista que los filósofos abandonaron hace tiempo como auto contradictoria y a jugar con el rechazo de la cuestión fundamental de los orígenes como sin sentido. A pesar de esto, Krauss gasta un puñado de páginas intentando explicar por qué hay algo en lugar de nada. El intento lo lleva a plantear la pregunta contra el teísmo, a rechazar la lógica en nombre de la ciencia y a adoptar un doble estándar. Este kludge de falacias convenció a Richard Dawkins de poner su nombre a la afirmación incoherente de que “la nada es inestable: algo estaba casi obligado a surgir de ella”[59], que solo muestra cuán intelectualmente inestables son los fundamentos del neo-ateísmo.
Recursos recomendados
(Video) William Lane Craig, ‘Why Does Anything at All Exist?’ (¿Por qué existe algo?) www.reasonablefaith.org/media/why-does-anything-at-all-exist-nflc-north-carolina
(Video) William Lane Craig, ‘Who Designed The Designer?’ (¿Quién diseñó el diseñador?) www.reasonablefaith.org/media/who-designed-the-designer
(Video) William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence M. Krauss, ‘Is There Evidence For God?’ (¿Hay evidencia para Dios?) www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-krauss-north-carolina-state-university
(Audio) Justin Brierley, ” ‘Unbelievable: A Universe From Nothing?’ (Increíble : ¿Un universo de la nada?)Lawrence Krauss vs. Rodney Holder ‘ www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid =% 7B02949395-E52F-4784-BF29-3A3138738B0B% 7D
(Audio) William Lane Craig, ‘A Universe From Nothing’ (Un universo de la nada) www.reasonablefaith.org/a-universe-from-nothing
(Audio) William Lane Craig, ‘Lawrence Krauss On Creation Out Of Nothing’ (En la creación de la nada) www.reasonablefaith.org/lawrence-krauss-on-creation-out-of-nothing
David Albert, ‘On the Origin of Everything’ (Sobre el origen de todo) www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
Ross Anderson, ‘Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?’ The Atlantic (¿La física hizo que la filosofía y la religión fueran obsoletas? El Atlántico) www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/
William E. Caroll, ‘The Science of Nothing’ (La ciencia de la nada) www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1259/the_science_of_nothing.aspx
Paul Copan, ‘Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of Gerhard May’s Proposal’ (¿Es Creatio Ex Nihilo una invención posbíblica?Un examen de la propuesta de Gerhard May) www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
William Lane Craig, ‘Atheist Physicist’s Repudiation of Logic and Probability Theory’ (Repudio a la teoría lógica y de probabilidad del físico ateo) www.reasonablefaith.org/atheistic-physicists-repudiation-of-logic-and-probability-theory
Sam Harris, ‘Everything and Nothing: An Interview with Lawrence M. Krauss’ (Todo y nada: una entrevista con Lawrence M. Krauss) http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644472-everything-and-nothing-an-interview-with-lawrence-krauss
John Horgan, ‘Science Will Never Explain Why There’s Something Rather Than Nothing’ Scientific American (April 23rd, 2012) (La ciencia nunca le explicará por qué hay algo en lugar de nada, Scientific American [23 de abril de 2012]) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/23/science-will-never- explicar por qué hay algo más que nada
Massimo Pigliucci, ‘Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex’ (Lawrence Krauss: otro físico con un complejo antifilosofía ) http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html
Bruce R. Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument : A Reassessment (El argumento cosmológico: una reevaluación) (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1972)
Richard Taylor, ‘The Cosmological Argument: A Defence’ (El argumento cosmológico: una defensa) http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/taylor.pdf
Peter S. Williams, ‘Who Made God?’ (¿Quién hizo Dios?) www.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/introductory/who-made-god.htm
Peter S. Williams, ‘Cambridge Union Debate (with analysis): This House Believes God Is Not A Delusion’ (Debate de Cambridge Union (con análisis): esta casa cree que Dios no es una ilusión) www.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/advanced/cambridge-union-society-debate-an-analysis .htm
Notas
[1] Richard Dawkins, “Epílogo”, Un universo de la nada, p. 191.
[2] Lawrence M. Krauss, Un universo de la nada: ¿por qué hay algo en lugar de nada? (London: Free Pres, 2012), p. xi.
[3] ibid.
[4] Lawrence M. Krauss, “Lawrence M. Krauss, on A Universe From Nothing”, Time Out , Sydney www.au.timeout.com/sydney/aroundtown/features/10453/lawrence-m.-krauss-on- a-universo-de-nada
[5] Lawrence Krauss en Sam Harris, ‘Everything and Nothing: An Interview with Lawrence M. Krauss’ (Todo y nada: una entrevista con Lawrence M. Krauss) http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644472-everything-and-nothing-an-interview-with-lawrence-krauss
[6] Krauss, “A Universe From Nothing” (Un universo de la nada), op cit.
[7] ibid.
[8] ibid.
[9] ibid, p. xii.
[10] Dallas Willard, ‘The Three-Stage Argument for the Existence of God’ in Contemporary Perspectives on Religious Epistemology (El argumento de tres etapas para la existencia de Dios en las perspectivas contemporáneas sobre la epistemología religiosa) (ed.Douglas Geivett y Brendan Sweetman; Oxford University Press, 1992).
[11] cf. Bruce R. Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment(El argumento cosmológico: una reevaluación) (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1972).
[12] cf. Richard Taylor, ‘The Cosmological Argument: A Defence’ (El argumento cosmológico: una defensa) http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/taylor.pdf
[13] cf. William Lane Craig, ‘Why Does Anything at All Exist?’ (¿Por qué existe algo?) www.reasonablefaith.org/media/why-does-anything-at-all-exist-nflc-north-carolina
[14] Krauss, op cit, p. 134.
[15] Calum Miller makes the same point in the context of his debate with Peter Atkins, cf. (Calum Miller hace el mismo punto en el contexto de su debate con Peter Atkins, cf.) http://dovetheology.com/apologetics/atkins/
[16] Richard Purtill citado por Charles Taliaferro, Contemporary Philosophy of Religion (Filosofía contemporánea de la religión) (Blackwells, 2001), p. 358-359.
[17] Krauss, op cit.
[18] ibid.
[19] ibid.
[20] cf. Peter Atkins vs. William Lane Craig, ‘Does God Exist?’ (¿Existe Dios?) www.bethinking.org/who-are-you-god/advanced/does-god-exist-bill-craig-debates-peter-atkins.htm & Kari Enqvist vs. William Lane Craig, ‘Can the Universe Exist Without God?’ (¿Puede el Universo existir sin Dios?)www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-enqvist-helsinki
[21] Lawrence M. Krauss, ‘Unbelievable: A Universe From Nothing? (Increíble: ¿un universo de la nada?)Lawrence Krauss vs. Rodney Holder’ www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid =% 7B02949395-E52F-4784-BF29-3A3138738B0B% 7D
[22] Massimo Pigliucci, “Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex (otro físico con una compleja antifilosofía)” http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html
[23] Krauss, op cit, xiii.
[24] cf. William Lane Craig, ‘Atheist Physicist’s Repudiation of Logic and Probability Theory’ (Repudio a la teoría lógica y de probabilidad del físico ateo) www.reasonablefaith.org/atheistic-physicists-repudiation-of-logic-and-probability-theory
[25] Krauss, op cit, xiv.
[26] Bruce R. Reichenbach, The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment (El argumento cosmológico: una reevaluación) (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1972), p. ix.
[27] Randy Everist, ‘Can Science Explain Everything?’ (¿Puede la ciencia explicar todo?) http://randyeverist.blogspot.com/2011/04/can-science-explain-everything.html
[28] Lawrence Krauss, debate con William Lane Craig 2011, cf. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/audio-and-video-from-the-debate-between-william-lane-craig-and-lawrence-krauss/
[29] ibid.
[30] William Lane Craig, Podcast sobre la Fe Razonable, 12 de junio de 2011.
[31] ibid, xvi.
[32] Jerry Coyne, ‘David Alberts pans Lawrence Krauss’ New Book’ (David Alberts presenta el nuevo libro de Lawrence Krauss) http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/david-albert-pans-lawrence-krausss-new-book/
[33] Krauss, op cit, xiii-xiv.
[34] Krauss en Harris, ‘Everything and Nothing: An Interview with Lawrence M. Krauss’ (Todo y nada: una entrevista con Lawrence M. Krauss), op cit.
[35] Krauss, Un universo de la nada, op cit, xvi.
[36] ibid, p. 149.
[37] Caroll, op cit.
[38] Krauss, op cit.
[39] Aristóteles, citado por Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God (¿Puede el hombre vivir sin Dios?) (Word, 1994), p. 131.
[40] Robert J. Spitzer, ‘The curious metaphysics of Dr Stephen Hawking’ (La curiosa metafísica del Dr. Stephen Hawking) www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0119.htm
[41] Paul Copan, ‘Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of Gerhard May’s Proposal’ (¿Es Creatio Ex Nihilo una invención post-bíblica? Un examen de la propuesta de Gerhard May) www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
[42] Thomas Aquinas, citado por Robert E. Maydole, The Third Ways Modalized (Las Terceras Formas Modalizadas) www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Reli/ReliMayd.htm
[43] Lawrence M. Krauss, ‘The Consolation of Philosophy’ (La consolación de la filosofía) www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id = the-consolation-of-philos & page = 3
[44] Krauss, A Universe From Nothing (Un universo de la nada , op cit, p. 152.
[45] ibid, p. 172.
[46] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Una breve historia del tiempo) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
[47] Peter Atkins, ‘Does God Exist?’ (¿Existe Dios?)http://youtu.be/NhIr9OQBst0
[48] Krauss, op cit, p. 174.
[49] Harris, An Interview with Lawrence M. Krauss’ (Todo y nada: una entrevista con Lawrence M. Krauss), op cit.
[50] David Albert, ‘On the Origin of Everything’ (Sobre el origen de todo) www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
[51] Lawrence Krauss en Justin Brierley, ‘Unbelievable: A Universe From Nothing? (Increíble: ¿Un universo de la nada?)Lawrence Krauss vs. Rodney Holder’ www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid =% 7B02949395-E52F-4784-BF29-3A3138738B0B% 7D
[52] Krauss, A Universe From Nothing (Un universo de la nada), op cit, p. 172.
[53] ibid, p. 174.
[54] ibid.
[55] William Lane Craig, ‘Can the Universe Exist Without God?’ (¿Puede el Universo existir sin Dios?)www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-enqvist-helsinki
[56] Krauss, op cit, p. 174.
[57] cf. Paul Copan, ‘Is Creatio Ex Nihilo A Post-Biblical Invention? An Examination of Gerhard May’s Proposal’ (¿Es Creatio Ex Nihilo una invención posbíblica? Un examen de la propuesta de Gerhard May) www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_exnihilo_copan.html
[58] Krauss, op cit, p. 178.
[59] Dawkins, ‘Afterword’, ibid, p. 189.
Blog Original: http://bit.ly/2HyFpgr
Traducido y editado por María Andreina Cerrada
Mike Adams: Rebel Revolutionary
CrossExaminedBy Terrell Clemmons
Mike Adams hopped off a bus in front of a small prison on the outskirts of Quito, Ecuador. A visiting professorship in South America had brought him here this damp morning to interview prisoners and guards as part of a human rights mission. It was just after 9:00 am on March 7th, 1996. At this point in his life, the thirty-one-year-old tenured professor of Criminology was a radical, hardened, and very angry atheist. Three hours later, he would walk out a different man.
A young prisoner named Pedro met him at the main gate and served as his guide. Pedro had been in for four years for forging a passport. He’d been acquitted, but his family was still raising the required fee to “process” his release. Once inside the inner gates, Mike nearly keeled over when he took his next breath. Human waste, unwashed bodies, and pools of coagulated filth that stuck to your shoes after you walked through it made for an insufferable stench. When they approached the kitchen, the smell of rotten food aggravated the assault on his senses, but what he saw outside the kitchen assaulted his psyche even more.
A teenage boy – he was at most eighteen – was getting a severe beating. What offense he’d committed, Mike didn’t know, but it almost sounded like his bones were breaking as they struck him mercilessly. Tenemos visitas, ¡pare! Someone shouted. “Stop, we have visitors!” and the club dropped. The helpless youth, shaking as he was being carried out, lifted his eyes as if to say, Gracias señor, for coming through when you did. At that point, the professor’s composure started to unravel.
He spoke for quite some time with another prisoner. This man had a Bible in his bunk, along with several pictures of Jesus. Pictures of Jesus look different in South American prisons, Mike noted. You can see pain, the crown of thorns, and blood. This prisoner was the father of two small children, one of whom he’d yet to meet, and even though he’d been waiting for two years for his trial (if convicted, his sentence would have been about two months), he said he had faith that everything would be okay. Mike saw peace. The prisoner shook his hand warmly when Mike left his cell and thanked him for coming to visit.
Mike walked out of prison in emotional shock. A guard with a machine gun slammed the gate behind him as he stood out front, paralyzed. The smell lingering about him was hideous. He thought of the prisoner he’d spoken with, whose name he didn’t even know. He’s happier than I am, Mike thought. He looked up at a statue of the Virgin Mary perched on a nearby hilltop. It was huge – kind of dingy and not very well taken care of, and Mike continued to stare at it without moving.
“I was wrong,” he finally said out loud.
A Born Rebel
The son of a Christian mother and an atheist father, young Mike had been something of a rebel all his life. Baptized at age 10, he grew up in a Texas Baptist church, but he preferred girls and soccer over God and school. He flunked high school English for four years straight, graduating with a GPA of 1.8. Underwhelming academics notwithstanding, he enrolled in college and started to study psychology.
Before long, after delving into Freud and Skinner, he simply announced one day that he was an agnostic. Then nine years later, as a graduate student, he told a friend, again rather abruptly, that he was an atheist. The blunt profession surprised him almost as much as it did his friend, but by this time, his life had become such a mad mix of sex, drugs, and rock and roll that anything was possible. Somehow, though, even in that haze, supporting himself financially by playing the guitar and juicing himself physically by popping amphetamines, he managed to earn his doctorate in Criminology and get hired on at the University of North Carolina – Wilmington to teach criminal justice.
Upended
In hindsight, he calls the four years following that prison visit, where his atheism along with any delusions of moral relativism had died in the span of about three hours, his “floating period.” The Christianity of his youth lay beneath the ruins, but returning to the church was another matter altogether. His heartfelt shame from his past life, while his head (He’d been a very outspoken atheist) imagined people snickering, “What is Mike Adams doing here at church?” It took another prison visit to propel him out of the water and onto solid ground.
Revolutionized
On December 30th, 1999, he spent three hours on death row with John Paul Penry, a convicted rapist, and murderer who was scheduled to be executed in two weeks. Penry was mentally retarded, and Mike had been teaching his case for several years. Just before they parted, Penry quoted a Bible verse to him. He misquoted it, actually, but he got enough of it right that Mike recognized it as John 3:16. Penry had learned to read in prison, and said he’d read the whole Bible. Mike reflected on the fact that this man with an IQ somewhere in the 50s had read the entire Bible – could even quote from it. I haven’t read it, he thought to himself. But this retarded guy has.
That did it. A few nights later, he sneaked into Barnes and Noble just before closing to buy a Bible. Over the next several months, he read it, front to back, along with a few other books he’d picked up by C.S. Lewis and Chuck Colson. By the end of this intellectual exercise, the formerly floating ex-atheist had found satisfactory answers to all the questions that had lured him into atheism, and his faith was solidified. When a friend mentioned that she’d been thinking about going back to church, Would he go with her? The professor’s turnabout was complete.
Fearless for a Cause
Which set him completely at odds with the prevailing campus milieu. He really didn’t set out to become a radical professor-provocateur, but Mike Adams had never been one to “go along to get along.” It started when he’d get snarky over some of the absurd and utterly stupid content of campus emails. He tried to point out the hypocrisy, narrow-mindedness, intellectual dishonesty, and appalling lack of balance and abuse of authority running rampant in their little corner of academia. But instead of responding to the facts he presented, the offending colleagues either ignored him, or when that didn’t work, threw temper tantrums, called him names, or tried to intimidate him into silence.
So he took the message to a wider audience and started writing a column for Agape Press. When Rush Limbaugh read one of them on air the following spring, Mike Adams was catapulted, almost overnight, onto the national platform he enjoys today.
They had picked the wrong guy to try to intimidate. “There is clearly something wrong with me,” he says, point blank serious. “I should be deathly terrified of the way that I confront radical Muslim extremists. I should be concerned for my life; I should be concerned for my job. I’m not afraid of those things,” he says. “But it’s worse than that,” and here his voice drops to a whisper. “I enjoy it.”
He admits to stamping his feet sometimes, and even howling with laughter as he writes. Skewering political correctness on campus can be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, he says, because his colleagues provide him with an endless supply of material. “They accuse me of making stuff up, but I can’t. I’m not that sick. I’m not on drugs anymore,”
He really isn’t, but you might wonder, now and again, when you read his extraordinarily entertaining twists of wit. For example, when the University’s new LGBTQIA Resource Center announced its opening last spring, (That “veritable alphabet soup of liberal victim-hood,” as he put it, stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersexed, and Ally.) he wrote the faculty advisor immediately. “We have an African American Center, a Women’s Center, El Centro Hispano, and now an LGBTQIA Resource Center,” he pointed out. “Have you ever considered starting a Conservative Professor Resource Center? It wouldn’t cost much money. You could just stick me in a cage in the middle of the campus and let the liberal professors walk by and gaze in wonder.”
Driven by a Calling
But, entertaining as his columns are, with titles like, “You Aren’t Bipolar, You’re Just a Jerk,” “Put Lipstick on a Feminist, and She’s Still a Prig,” and “Diversity and Perversity at my Little University,” don’t mistake Dr. Mike Adams for a mere feisty humorist. This is a man driven by a deep sense of purpose who takes very seriously his positioning to expose the derelictions of duty being perpetrated and passed off as higher education. It drives him daily to serve up the straight-shooting truth – delightfully refreshing or devastatingly exacting, depending on which side of it you stand – for readers, yes, but more immediately for students whose very souls are at risk of getting eaten alive by wolves cleverly disguised as university administrators.
“In a time of universal deceit,” wrote George Orwell, “speaking the truth is a revolutionary act.” Dr. Adams says his greatest joy comes when he’s effected positive change in a student’s life, whether it’s an atheist becoming a Christian; a Communist becoming a freedom fighter; a relativist learning to reason, or simply an internet-surfer picking up books and starting to read. In whatever condition they come to him, Dr. Adams gives his students and readers the truth. The power of truth to revolutionize takes it from there.
Mike Adams writes a nationally syndicated column for Townhall.com and is the author of Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel and Feminists Say the Darndest Things.
Click here to hear Dr. Adams on Campus Speech Codes at CPAC 2011.
This article first appeared in Salvo 14, Fall 2010.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2p8GggZ
Bas-Relief: The Big Picture Amid Gay Demands
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Terrell Clemmons
Dear Mick,
They say fools rush in where angels fear to tread. This territory is contentious, but I’m neither rushing in nor fearful to tread. You have pushed me to the wall, all but demanding a response from me, so here goes. Yes, I have seen the news reports about gay teens who have taken their own lives, including the most highly publicized one, Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers University freshman who jumped off the George Washington Bridge after his sexual encounter was filmed and broadcast on the web. Yes, I agree with you that teen death is always tragic, and when it comes to suicide, it’s especially heart-wrenching. Yes, I have seen the videos posted online by celebrities, calling for an end to harassment of gays, and yes, I have heard your cries for action.
I certainly won’t argue with, “Stop the bullying.” Aggression and abuse are never acceptable.
So why do you overlook the actual aggressors? Instead of calling them to account, you have leveled your sights on something else. At bottom, your demand really isn’t, “End the bullying.” It’s, “End the religion-based teachings about homosexuality.”
About Defamation
It’s a chorus that’s been building for over a decade. In 1998, after Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student, was abducted, beaten, and left for dead by two local thugs, NBC Today show host Katie Couric also ignored the perpetrators and questioned whether Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family might be responsible, having created “a climate of hate.” As I read Crisis: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America, I heard the same theme. The primary impediment to gays’ mental health and wholeness, according to Mitchell Gold who collected and edited the stories, is religion-based bigotry and religious intolerance. Not bigotry, but religion-based bigotry. Not intolerance, but religious intolerance.
Now the meme has gone global. That became apparent in the NPR article you showed me recently. “Christians?” you asked, one eyebrow raised. A lawmaker in Uganda introduced a bill imposing the death penalty for some homosexual acts and life in prison for others. I read the article, wondering exactly how Christianity played into this development. It didn’t. The reporter had drawn that conclusion for readers, adding in the final sentence, “The legislation was drawn up following a visit by leaders of U.S. conservative Christian ministries that promote therapy they say allows gays to become heterosexual.”
That conclusion dovetails with your grievance. I and people like me have the blood of gay teens and many others on our hands. I’ll grant you this, Mick. Where others stop at dropping hints, you do have the chutzpah to come right out with it.
About Intolerance
So I will be equally straightforward. As I write this, I am wearing a purple t-shirt. Today was designated by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD) as “Wear Purple Day,” to raise awareness and “bring an end to intolerance” in honor of the deceased teens. As a mother of three, I am moved by the plight of troubled teens too, but there’s more to my personal “Wear Purple Day” than yours. I will explain.
My purple shirt also has a cross on it, and on the back you can read, “I’m souled out, are you?” Yes, Mick, it’s a play on words that refers to my religious convictions. I bring that into the discussion because you seem to have a bigger problem with my personal convictions concerning sex and morality than you do with the actual crimes that have been committed.
Fortunately, the legal system hasn’t taken your approach. The boys who killed Matthew Shepard are sitting behind bars, and probably will be for the rest of their earthly lives. Likewise, the students accused of webcasting the escapades of Tyler Clementi are under investigation by local authorities, as are the perpetrators of other crimes you’ve brought to my attention. (You call them hate crimes. I just call them crimes.) But this doesn’t seem to matter to you. What matters to you is that people like me be called upon to either change our beliefs or … or what, Mick? The cries are increasingly sounding like a threat, “Endorse homosexuality or else!”
About Harassment
I have not asked you to live by my code. But you are demanding that I adopt yours. To be honest, Mick, I’m starting to feel bullied. In recent months, you have called me, directly or indirectly, a bigot, a homophobe, a hater, an extremist, and now a virtual murderer. To the best of my memory, I haven’t called you anything but Mick. Honestly, who’s harassing whom?
I could make the dissension between us go away overnight by mouthing a blessing on your homosexuality. It would make my life easier, but I can’t do that. My conscience won’t let me. In fact, to be gut-level honest, Mick, love won’t let me. Love for you and for those teens struggling to figure out love in a hyper-sexualized culture. You see, I believe homosexuality is less than what God made you for. You may be content with it (though I would venture your escalating demands for affirmation suggest otherwise), but there are many who aren’t.
About Questioning Sexuality
College professor J. Budziszewski records a poignant conversation with a graduate student in his book, Ask Me Anything, that illustrates the soul-searching is going on among today’s youth.
Adam had been living the gay life for five years, but he was growing disillusioned with it. He had no problem finding sex, but even in steady relationships, the lack of intimacy and faithfulness was getting him down. “I’m starting to want … I don’t know. Something more,” he said.
“I follow you,” the professor said.
“Another thing,” Adam went on. “I want to be a Dad.” His gay friends couldn’t relate to that. Get a turkey baster and make an arrangement with a lesbian, they said. But he didn’t find the joke funny.
And there was one more thing. He’d started thinking about God. He’d been to a gay church, but something about it didn’t sit right. Adam was confused, and he’d come to Dr. Budziszewski to get the Big Picture about sex.
I don’t know what you might have said to Adam, but I know what one prominent gay author counsels. In Growing Up Gay in America: Informative and Practical Advice for Teen Guys Questioning Their Sexuality and Growing Up Gay, Jason Rich recommends making contact, anonymously online if necessary, with other gays. “You can also access the tremendous amount of gay pornography on the Internet and see, for example, if hot naked guys and/or sexual images of guys having sex with other guys actually turns you on,” he adds.
About Discrimination
Adam had already tried all those things and found them wanting. Now he was thinking about leaving homosexuality. Which leads to a subject that is even more contentious for you. Ex-gays. Mick, you have a lot to say about gays being mistreated, but it appears to me the most abused and reviled group of people in America today is not gays, but ex-gays. The Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), a non-profit advocacy group, has documented a lot of incidents of hostility and blatant discrimination against men and women who have left homosexuality. Ex-gay Perri Roberts, in the preface to his autobiography, Dying for Love, pleaded with homosexuals to simply grant him the space to change his life if he chooses and to allow him to help others who want to leave homosexuality do so freely.
Would you grant Perri that freedom? Would you even grant Dr. Budziszewski the freedom to explain the Big Picture? Or would you have them censored and silenced, effectively consigning young people like Adam to homosexuality with no way out?
About Acceptance
Mick, I respect your freedom to live out the sexuality you prefer, but I will not jettison the Big Picture. Adam is onto something. Sex has its place, but the human soul longs for more than sex. Things like intimacy and permanence. Becoming a parent and raising a family. There is a Big Picture about sex, Mick, and all those things are part of it. I will not withhold that from Adam or others like him.
I do not accept responsibility for the teen suicides, nor do I accept the charges of bigotry, intolerance, or hate. I realize my Judeo-Christian construct for sex causes you distress, but I can’t surrender it for you or anyone else. That would be giving you a cheap substitute for love. Still, I value your friendship, so I leave it to you to decide whether you will accept me as I am or jettison me from your life.
I leave you with one final thought. You may succeed in silencing me and others like me who hold to the Big Picture, but that won’t make the Big Picture go away. It’s part of the created order.
Even your protestations attest to that.
This article first appeared in Salvo 15, Winter 2010.
Related articles:
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FNAbAj