If Dr. Richard Dawkins is the atheist’s rock star of biology, Dr. Lawrence Krauss is the atheist’s rock star of physics (maybe only second to Stephen Hawking). An engaging speaker and winsome personality, Dr. Krauss is a theoretical physicist and professor at Arizona State University. In his book A Universe from Nothing, Krauss seeks to answer the age-old question, “Why is there something rather than nothing” without reference to God.
Dr. Krauss says the cause of the universe is not God—it is “nothing.” He cites happenings at the quantum level to dispense with the need for God. (The quantum level is the world of the extremely small, subatomic in size.)
“One of the things about quantum mechanics is not only can nothing become something, nothing always becomes something,” says Dr. Krauss. “Nothing is unstable. Nothing will always produce something in quantum mechanics.”[i]
Now, whenever you hear something that just doesn’t sound right, you ought to ask the person making the claim, “What do you mean by that?” In this case, the precise question to Dr. Krauss would be, “What do you mean by ‘nothing’?”
It turns out that Dr. Krauss’ definition of “nothing” is not the “nothing” from which the universe originated. The initial starting point of the universe was not the quantum vacuum that Dr. Krauss keeps referring to in his book. The starting point was non-being– literally no thing. Since no thing isn’t anything, there are no properties to work with. Nothing is, as Aristotle put it, what rocks dream about. Unless someone powerful intervenes, the ancient maxim still stands: out of nothing, nothing comes.
A quantum vacuum, on the other hand, is something—it consists of fields of fluctuating energy from which particles appear to pop in and out of existence. Whether these particles are uncaused, or are caused but are merely unpredictable to us, is unknown. There are ten different models of the quantum level, and no one knows which is correct. What we do know is that, whatever is happening there, it is not creation out of nothing. Moreover, the vacuum itself had a beginning and therefore needs a cause.
Lest you think I am mad to question the physics of Dr. Krauss, please note that I am more questioning his logic, which is required to do science of any kind. Dr. Krauss is committing the logical fallacy known as equivocation—that is using the same word in an argument but with two different definitions. The “nothing” in the title of Dr. Krauss’ book is not the “nothing” from which the universe came.
This critical distinction was not lost on fellow atheist Dr. David Albert. A Ph.D. in theoretical physics, Dr. Albert is a Professor at Columbia University and author of the book Quantum Mechanics and Experience. In his scathing review of Krauss’ book in the New York Times, Dr. Albert questions both Krauss’ logic and his physics. He pulls no punches and even uses his fist to illustrate.
Commenting on Krauss’ central claim that particles emerging from the quantum vacuum are like creation out of nothing, Dr. Albert writes:
But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing (emphasis in the original).[ii]
Speaking of fists, Dr. Albert lands the knockout blow to Krauss’ entire thesis this way, “But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.” (It’s important to note that Dr. Albert and Columbia University are not known for Christian fundamentalism.)
Now Dr. Krauss didn’t take all this lying down. He got up off the canvas and fought back by calling Dr. Albert “a moronic philosopher.”[iii]
Well, that solves that then. If the guy’s a moron, the non-moron must be right. Right? Actually, on several occasions in this book, Dr. Krauss confuses even non-moronic readers when he admits Dr. Albert’s point in advance—namely, that the “nothing” Krauss is talking about is not exactly the nothing from which the universe came. Dr. Krauss even puts his “nothing” in quotation marks like I just did.
In an interview, Krauss acknowledges that no matter how one defines “nothing,” the laws of physics are not nothing (sorry to keep using the word nothing, but there’s nothing else to use!). And although he’s clearly annoyed doing so, Dr. Krauss eventually gets around to admitting that his “nothing” is actually something.
“Even if you accept this argument that nothing is not nothing,” he says, “you have to acknowledge that nothing is being used in a philosophical sense. But I don’t really give a damn about what ‘nothing’ means to philosophers; I care about the ‘nothing’ of reality. And if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that.”[iv]
So if Dr. Krauss admits all this, why the bait and switch title: “A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing”? Why smuggle in the laws of physics and the quantum vacuum and then call it “nothing”? Why diss philosophers who are only trying to bring the book’s assertions back to reality?
Dr. Krauss seems to think that philosophers are not talking about reality, when in fact, that’s exactly what philosophy is—the study of ultimate reality. The problem for Krauss is two-fold.
First, reality is not merely physical stuff. Since nature and the laws of physics themselves had a beginning, ultimate reality is beyond nature or supernatural. So despite claiming to explain how the universe came from nothing, Krauss has explained nothing.
The second problem is a far more serious intellectual disease that infects the thinking of Krauss and several other prominent atheists as well. This disease is so severe that it threatens the accuracy of the very science they seek to promote. Krauss, like Dawkins and Hawking, are dismissive of philosophy.
Now, having studied a lot of wacky philosophy myself, I sympathize with them. But the existence of wacky philosophy doesn’t discredit the existence of good philosophy any more than the existence of wacky science discredits the existence of good science. While it is true that one can use bad philosophy, it is impossible to use no philosophy.
In fact—and this is the essential point—Krauss, Dawkins and the like can’t do science without philosophy. While scientists are usually seeking to understand physical cause and effect, science itself is built on philosophical principles that are not physical themselves—they are beyond the physical (metaphysical). Those principles help the scientist make precise definitions and clear distinctions and then interpret all the relevant data rationally.
What exactly is relevant? What exactly is rational? What exactly is the best interpretation of the data –including what exactly is or isn’t “nothing”? Those questions are all answered through the use of philosophy. (Perhaps that’s why the “Ph.” in Ph.D. stands for “philosophy.” The originators of advanced degrees knew that philosophy is the foundation of every area of inquiry.)
Einstein had an observation about the man of science. He said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.” Unfortunately, if you abandon good philosophy you end up with bad science. And if you disdain all philosophy, as Krauss and company tend to do, then you put yourself in the self-defeating position of holding a philosophy that disdains all philosophy. You can’t get away from philosophy. It’s like logic. To deny it is to use it.
In the end, despite the lofty promises of his book’s title, Dr. Krauss explains nothing about the ultimate origin of the universe.
Notes
[iv] Ross Anderson, Ibid.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
God’s Crime Scene: Cold-Case…Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Paperback), (Mp4 Download), and (DVD Set) by J. Warner Wallace
God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design (mp4 Download Set) by J. Warner Wallace
God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design in Biology DVD Set by J. Warner Wallace
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle, posted every Monday, is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from myriad sources. I read 75-100 books per year in all genres. My goal is to share the best of what I come across each week. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, Jim Whiddon
11. HARD WORK “There is no elevator to success—you have to take the stairs.” — Unknown
12. MAN’S BEST FRIEND “A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of.” — Ogden Nash
13. SERENDIPITY “The story of 3M’s Post-it! Notes was well chronicled in Tom Peter’s classic book, In Search of Excellence. What was (and is) fascinating about the story is not merely the success of the sticky notes, it’s the fact that 3M, well known for its strong adhesives, screwed-up during research and development and created an unusually weak and seemingly useless adhesive. In fact, the glue was so weak that it couldn’t hold paper together permanently. Voila!
Velcro was developed in the 1960s by NASA to hold things down so they wouldn’t float all over the place in outer space.
Preparation H is used by actors to remove the puffiness under their eyes.”
Excerpt From: Avrin, David. “It’s Not Who You Know — It’s Who Knows You!.”
14.SELF EDUCATION “Most great men in history have become great because they aggressively pursued knowledge. They overcame gaps in their early education. They studied to understand the world at a level well beyond their years. They took responsibility for their education and did not wait for the knowledge they needed to come to them.
There isn’t the space here to list all the great men who set themselves apart through self-education. Winston Churchill read so ravenously when he was a young officer in India that a biographer later wrote that “he became his own university.” Lincoln was also enflamed by a hunger to learn. He read every book he could buy or borrow.
Devotion to self-education is unquestionably one of the marks of an exceptional man. Passive men wait for knowledge to come to them. Weak men assume what they need to know will seek them out. Men of great character and drive search out the knowledge they need. They take responsibility for knowing what they must know to live effectively in their generation and to prosper. I know this sounds old school. I know this sounds like a lesson meant for the barefoot boy born in a dirt-floor cabin in the 1800s. I assure you it is a lesson for men today. In fact, it may prove to be one of the most important lessons for men today.”
Excerpt From: Mansfield, Stephen. “Mansfield’s Book of Manly Men.”
15. COMFORT “Our Heavenly Father has provided many delightful inns for us along our journey, but He takes great care to see that we do not mistake any of them for home.” — C.S Lewis
16. HISTORY WRITTEN BY THOSE WITH BEST PRESS AGENTS “It was Amerigo Vespucci, an acquaintance of Columbus, who is credited with America’s discovery in 1497, five years after Columbus landed in the Caribbean Islands while searching for a new route to the spice-rich Far East. Chinese Admiral Cheng Ho, who visited the Americas in 1421, could lay claim as well — and there is also evidence that Scandinavian explorer Leif Erikson reached the Americas hundreds of years before any of these other explorers.” Excerpt From: Ben Carson, M.D. “America the Beautiful.”
17. COMMITMENT “Some people want to master every corner of the God question before they make a commitment to believe in Him, and they miss the heart of the issue—the issue of the heart.”
Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”
18. RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR GENERATION “If there must be trouble,” said American revolutionary Thomas Paine, “let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”
Will our grandchildren enjoy the freedom and prosperity we enjoy, or will they ask us, “Where were you when freedom died?”
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “Not to stand is to stand. Not to speak is to speak.”
Saint Catherine of Siena said, “If you are what you should be, you will set the whole world on fire.”
Excerpt From: James Robison & Jay W. Richards. “Indivisible.”
19. LAWS AND MORALS “Did the abolition of slavery and the passage of civil rights laws affect people’s attitudes about slavery and race? Did Roe v. Wade, which struck down state restrictions on abortion, influence people’s views on abortion? If same-sex “marriage” is made the law of the land, do you think that will affect the sexual attitudes and actions of schoolchildren? If suicide for the terminally ill becomes widely accepted, do you think this will affect how we view the sick and the elderly? If the sale of marijuana is legalized, will that influence views on the morality of smoking pot? Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.”
Excerpt From: James Robison & Jay W. Richards. “Indivisible.”
20. WORRY ABOUT FUTURE “We would rather have the security of our yesterday than the uncertainty of our tomorrow.
But it’s the uncertainty of our future that really strengthens our faith. I mean, if we knew what it was all about, then it would take no faith. All it would take is obedience. If you knew what was going to happen in the next ten years of your life, what kind of faith would it take to walk that path?
It’s the mystery of it all that gives it the power, the mystery of the whole process called God’s working that makes the power so magnificent.”
Excerpt From: Charles R. Swindoll. “Wisdom for the Way.”
The Wisdom Chronicle
Wisdom ChronicleThe Wisdom Chronicle is designed to bring nuggets of wisdom from myriad sources. In reading 75-100 books per year in all genres, my mission is to share the best excerpts I come across each week. The determination of relevance lies with you. Blessings, Jim Whiddon
1. CHINESE PROVERB: “It is better that wisdom come late rather than not at all.”
2. IDEAS “The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.” — C.S. Lewis
3. HYBRID CARS “Paying up for a car that will save on gas. Lexus makes a hybrid that gets an extra four to five miles a gallon but costs something like $30,000 more than the conventional model. My friend Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation, recently flagged a Barron’s review of the hybrid. Barron’s pointed out that if gas cost four dollars a gallon, it would take something like two hundred years of driving 15,000 miles annually to cover the extra cost of this hybrid.” Excerpt From: Richards, Carl. “The Behavior Gap.”
4. PLANNING “Think of the difference between a flight plan and an actual flight. Flight plans are really just the pilot’s best guess about things like the weather. No matter how much time the pilot spent planning, things don’t always go according to the plan.In fact, they rarely go just the way the pilot planned. There are just too many variables. So while the plan is important, the key to arriving safely is the pilot’s ability to make the small and consistent course corrections. It is about the course corrections, not the plan.” Excerpt From: Richards, Carl. “The Behavior Gap.”
5. NAMES “The secret of the universe is the naming of things” — Native American saying
6. BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW “When we neglect or reject the revealed truth of Scripture, even our most brilliant scientists and professors are little more than mice scurrying around inside a piano, analyzing all the hammers and strings, willfully ignorant of the musical score sitting on the stand above the keys.” “it is exceedingly odd that scholars master whole libraries seeking wisdom, while the janitor nearby has enjoyed it for years.” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”
7. LEAVING TOO MUCH FOR KIDS “French novelist Gaston Leroux, creator of The Phantom of the Opera, was almost destroyed in this way. When his father died suddenly, leaving him with a fortune of almost one million francs, Gaston abandoned his career and relaxed into a dissipated existence of gambling and pleasure in colorful Paris society. Within a year he had squandered his inheritance— another sadder but wiser prodigal. Solomon is warning us that accumulating mountains of money becomes meaningless to us within two seconds of death. In fact, the very reality of death strips our possessions of lasting significance.” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”
8. STEWARDSHIP “How important it is, then, to keep God in the middle of our bank accounts, our possessions, and our portfolios. Picture your hands out in front of you, cupped together, palms up. In your open hands are all the things He has entrusted to you—money, cars, a home, furniture, everything. All of this is His gift (James 1:17). We are the stewards, and faithfulness is our charge. That means our hands must never close over the gifts, but remain open so that He may use them as required—and refill our hands.” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”
9. UNCERTAINTY OF LIFE “It is said that on Veteran’s Day! November 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy visited Arlington Cemetery to pay his respects to America’s fallen heroes. Gazing over the rolling Virginia hillside from Arlington House, he remarked, “It is so beautiful that I could stay here forever.” Two weeks later he returned in a flag-draped coffin to be buried beneath an eternal flame.” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”
10. REPLENISHMENT “You are literally not the same person you were seven years ago physically. Scientists tell us that every seven years we replenish all the cells within our bodies. What about spiritually?” Excerpt From: Jeremiah, David. “Searching for Heaven on Earth.”
Getting Over a Hump: Does the Lack of Camel Bones Disprove the Historicity of the Biblical Patriarchs?
DebatesIn a recent article published in the journal Tel Aviv, Drs. Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Archaeology and Near Eastern Cultures, believe that they have pin pointed the date of the domestication of camels in Israel.
Their research is based primarily from data that they have collected from the Aravah (or Arabah) valley located in the southern Levant. The Arabah which is now desert, was a once verdant valley in antiquity. The Arabah is located just south of the Dead Sea and runs roughly north and south bordering Israel & Jordan (see image below)
The Arabah (from Google Earth)
The conclusion of their research indicates that camels were domesticated between the 9th – 12th century B.C.. An article which summarized the finding stated:
“In all the digs, they found that camel bones were unearthed almost exclusively in archaeological layers dating from the last third of the 10th century BCE or later — centuries after the patriarchs lived and decades after the Kingdom of David, according to the Bible.”[1]
The researchers seemed overly eager to point out the discrepancy with the Bible.
“Camels are mentioned as pack animals in the biblical stories of Abraham, Joseph, and Jacob. But archaeologists have shown that camels were not domesticated in the Land of Israel until centuries after the Age of the Patriarchs (2000-1500 BCE). In addition to challenging the Bible’s historicity, this anachronism is direct proof that the text was compiled well after the events it describes.[2]”
But, is it really the case that the biblical narratives which mention the patriarchs, were written after the events they describe? Or, could there be another explanation?
Camels and the Biblical Patriarchs
As far back as the book of Genesis, camels are can be linked with such Old Testament patriarchs as Abraham, Jacob, Laban and Moses. Camels are also mentioned periodically on various other occasions throughout later Old Testament history.
Jacob meets Esau by Francisco Hayez – 1844 (Wikicommons)
In Genesis 12:16 & 24:10-67 camels were used for a trip to Syria; they were also included as a bride price, and when Abraham was in Egypt camels were a small part of larger herds of other animals.
In Genesis 30:43; 31:34; 32:15 Jacob’s flocks along with Laban included camels as herd animals for Esau in the Seir area. In the Joseph narrative (Gen. 37:25) camels were used by Midianite-Ishmaelite traders caravanning to Egypt. In Exodus 9:3 camels were among the animals which were plagued during Moses’ day in Egypt.
Resolving the Camel Anachronism
For those of us who hold that the Old Testament patriarchal narratives are historical in nature, how does one solve the dilemma that this new research seems to reveal? Does the lack of camel bones in southern Israel (in the Arabah) during the Patriarchal period reveal the biblical narrative to be the work of late writers?
There are four good reasons why I do not believe this recent “discovery” is fatal to the historicity of the Old Testament patriarchs.
First of all, one of the many things that the history of archaeology in the Levant has shown over the past several decades is that one report is certainly not the last word on any given subject on ancient or biblical history. New research continues to overthrow long-held assumptions and biases against the Bible.[3]
Secondly, the archaeologists primary research area was conducted (according to their own report) in copper mining sites in the southern Arabah. According to the Bible, the patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, et. al.), were pastoralists and semi-nomads whose travel itinerary would not have left them in any one place for any length of time. It is not surprising why little camel remains are discovered in the southern Levant.
Third, as Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen points out, camels don’t actually figure that large in the lives of the patriarchs in any significant sense anyway. He writes:
“A common claim is that mentions of camels are anachronistic before circa 1100. What are the facts? In biblical terms, between roughly 2000 and 1200 their role is minimal.”[4]
In other words – yes – the biblical patriarchs owned camels, but it is not as if they were camel traders or camel herders. Camels played a small part in their lives.
But even so, other research suggests that camels have been present on the Arabian peninsula since at least 6,000 B.C.. From 2200-1200 B.C. rock art in Southwest Arabia and possible camel remains from Bir Risisim in the Levant suggest that camels were used for their milk and for transport.[5]
Camels were definitely present in the geographical area, as well as during the time of the patriarchs, so merely because we don’t find their remains in one specific location or archaeological period, certainly doesn’t mean that there are none at all.
This leads me to the fourth and final reason – Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – a phrase often attributed to the great American Biblical archaeologist, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi. In chaper IV of Dr. Yamauchi’s great book, The Stones and the Scriptures (written 42 years ago) he rightly asks:
“How much of the evidence has survived the ravages of time? How many ancient sites have archaeologists been able to excavate? When does the lack of evidence for a biblical statement prove that an error is involved? Does archaeology offset the negative appraisal of the Bible developed by higher criticism? …Historians of antiquity in using the archaeological evidence have very often failed to realize how slight is the evidence at our disposal. It would not be exaggerating to point out that what we have is but a fraction of the possible evidence.”[6]
For more information on the historicity of the Old Testament Patriarchs see my previous articles here
[1]http://www.aftau.org/site/News2/2024116989?page=NewsArticle&id=19673&news_iv_ctrl=-1 (accessed, February 11, 14)
[2]Ibid.
[3] For example: the discovery of the “Tel-Dan inscription” in 1993-4 by Avraham Biram in Northern Israel, containing the extra-biblical name of David (in the Tel-Dan Stele)
[4] Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Cambridge, U.K.; 2003), 338-9.
[5] See, Juris Zarins, “Camel,” in David Noel Freedman, Editor, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 1, A-C (New York, London: Anchor Doubleday, 1992), 824-6.
[6] Edwin M. Yamauchi, The Stones and Scriptures (Philadelphia & New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1972), 146-62.
The Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye “Post-Debate” Round Up
1. Does Truth Exist?, 2. Does God Exist?, 3. Are Miracles Possible?, Atheism, Culture CrossExamined, DebatesJust as expected, the much anticipated and hyped debate between Kan Ham (CEO of Answers in Genesis) & Bill Nye (the “Science” Guy) sparked a “mini-blizzard” of blogs and articles from people on both sides of the debate (I guess this is just one more to add to the pile).
If you happened to miss the debate, it will be posted here on the AiG (Answers in Genesis) website and will also available for purchase. An estimated three million people viewed the debate which was streamed live from the internet to schools, churches and colleges across America and around the world.
It is certainly easy to play “Monday morning quarterback” on these sorts of debates. Both men are to be admired for being willing to stand “in the arena” and defend their respective views and take criticism.
I thought both men handled themselves admirably, although I must say that I thought Nye was more personable and passionate when he was speaking which certainly plays to his favor rhetorically. One of Ken Ham’s strongest moments, I thought, was when he played the clips of various PhD. scientists who are creationists and have either invented useful technologies [MRI] or have conducted peer-reviewed research, undercutting Nye’s claim that a belief in Divine creation stifles or limits science.
Nearly everyone has thoughts on what “should have been said” or “what kinds of evidence should have been used.”
I read though the various blogs and articles, however, I came across several great points which I will highlight in a moment.
Originally, I had planned on writing a point-by-point critique and evaluation of the debate, but since that has already been done on numerous other sites (which I will list below for your consideration); instead, I will review just a couple of my personal expectations on what I thought the debate would accomplish (I originally shared all six on my personal Facebook page) and whether or not they “played out” as I expected.
1. Both debaters represent a popular understanding of the respective positions on this debate (Faith & Science). It will certainly not be settled in this debate, but will spark even more debate and reams of new blogs from apologists scrambling to distance themselves from “Simple minded” creationists like Ken Ham.
As expected, I remain unconvinced that someone who was watching the debate last night will walk away with a deeper and more enlightened understanding of this complex issue (i.e. faith and science and their compatibility).
There’s certainly nothing wrong with public speakers who try to popularize complex ideas and communicate them to an broad audience (that’s what I do!), but I don’t believe that these two gentlemen were the best representatives of their respective “camps.”
As a friend of mine pointed out last night, “…they both seemed like they were giving infomercials for their respective audiences.” I agree.
Also expected and fulfilled were the reams of new blogs and articles from apologists offering alternative explanations and perspectives (I guess this one is a self-fullfilled prophecy!).
2. As a classically trained apologist (in the vein of Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Geisler, et. al.), I cringe at the very likely possibility that Ham will “…beg the question” in his presuppositional approach to defending the Bible. When and if he uses evidence, I will rejoice and be glad.
The question that was debated was “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” While this is a good question, it actually doesn’t get at the root issue which is whether or not a theistic God exists and what evidence, if any points to His existence.
At CrossExamined we don’t take an official position on the age of the earth. We have students and supporters who defend each of the mainline views on origins (i.e. Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, etc…).
That said however, we confidently stand on evidence in support of our belief in a personal, all-powerful, space-less, timeless, immaterial Creator. We leave it to Christians to sift the evidence for themselves, as to whether or not the earth is young or old.
The question of the age of the earth is a “second order question.” The question of God’s existence is a “first order question.” In dialoguing and debating non-believers, we should not front-load the conversation with secondary questions. Establishing God’s existence is primary.
Last night Ken Ham’s very starting point for science was the Bible itself and the age of the earth. The only problem with that is that Bill Nye and perhaps millions of others, don’t accept the Bible as true because they don’t believe there is a God.
My criticism isn’t necessarily leveled against Ken Ham’s Young Earth Creationism (or some of the other evidences he presented), rather it’s against the WAY that he argued which is just as important. In beginning with the Bible, he put the cart before the horse.
Let me be perfectly clear – I am a staunch defender of Biblical inerrancy, but in order for inerrancy to be philosophically true, Truth (with a capital “T”) must exist, God must exist and naturalism (as a worldview) must be false. The space-time universe is not a closed system, so miracles and the supernatural are very reasonable possibilities.
3. The truth of Romans 1 & Psalm 19 has been in full operation since the creation of the world when there were no publicly hyped debates.
One of the great things about God’s Word is that its truths are timeless and ever relevant.
Creation itself (which is silent yet vocal – Psa. 19:3-4) is the greatest evidence for the Creator. The evidence is so great and overwhelming that there is no debate – all men are without excuse (Rom. 1:20). The age of the earth wasn’t an issue when Paul penned Romans, yet he tells us that “everyone can know that there is a Creator.”
Below are a few blogs that I found especially helpful in illuminating and evaluating the Nye/Ham debate.
Helpful Blogs About the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate On Feb 4th, 2014
Casey Luskin (Discovery Institute) Old Earth Creationist
David Coppedge (Creation Writer) Young Earth Creationist
Melissa Cain Travis (Houston Baptist University) Old Earth Creationist
Dr. Albert Mohler (President, Southern Seminary) Young Earth Creationist
Christians in the Super Bowl
Culture CrossExaminedHere’s a compilation of comments from Seahawks and Broncos who are Christians (or at least believers in God). Thought some of you might find this inspiring. (The major media only seems to carry such comments when it’s impossible not to– when they are made live.)
How to Reach Your Non-Christian Relatives this Christmas
CrossExaminedFace it. You’re probably not going to get them to accept Jesus by the end of dinner. A direct frontal assault with facts isn’t going to work because many of them don’t want Christianity to be true. So I think your goal should be more modest. How about just planting and watering seeds (like Jesus and Paul did!)? In other words, getting them to doubt what they believe and/or getting them to think about the claims of Christianity.
Here are few ideas you might try:
10. Write them afterwards: Following up on a conversation later via email can be very effective. That’s because you can present your ideas more clearly and completely while the other person can actually consider what you are saying without feeling the pressure of having to respond immediately. You can also include links to articles or websites for those that want to go deeper.
I hope some of these ideas will help you move people closer to the gospel this Christmas! I’d love to hear what actually worked for you. Please you story in a comment below or drop me an email at Frank@CrossExamined.org after the holiday. Blessings to you this Christmas!
Does Causality Apply Outside of Space and Time?
2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Philosophy of ScienceDr. Lawrence Krauss cites a slightly different objection. When Dr. Krauss says that every physical thing requires a physical cause, he is talking about what Aristotle called “material” causality—namely, what the cause is made of. But the objection my radio opponent made deals with what Aristotle called “efficient” causality. An efficient cause is what most people think of when they think of a cause. It is the primary source of the effect: an author writes a book, a spider builds a web, a quarterback throws a pass. They are efficient causes.
Atheists who make this claim are saying that there is no efficient cause of the universe because it didn’t take place in space or time. Let’s look at that argument in a syllogism.
This argument doesn’t work because the first premise is false. Notice that there is no physical relationship between the premises and the conclusion of the argument above (or any argument). Also notice that the premises are not objects in space-time. Yet, there is a causal relationship between the premises and the conclusion. In other words, true premises cause valid conclusions.
If this atheist argument were sound, then no argument could be sound. Why? Because if the law of causality only applied to physical things, then no argument would work because premises and conclusions are not physical things. For any argument to work—including arguments against God—the law of causality must apply to the immaterial realm because the components of arguments are immaterial.
In other words, logic itself wouldn’t work if the first premise were true. But since logic works, the law of causality applies metaphysically not just physically. In fact, to deny causality beyond space and time would be to deny logic, which would be self-defeating and would negate our ability to argue anything.
You can also see why it is self-defeating to deny the law of causality by simply asking anyone who doubts it, “What caused you to come to that conclusion?” Or more precisely, “What reasons do you have for your position?”
If the person cites scientific experiments or observations as the source for his evidence, then point out that experiments and observations presuppose cause and effect. You couldn’t make those observations or draw any conclusions without the law of causality.[i] Likewise, any process of reasoning he uses would also use the very law of causality he would be denying. In other words, it’s self-defeating rationally and scientifically to conclude that effects do not need causes. That’s because any denial of the law of causality uses the law of causality.
[i] Some atheists will appeal to the quantum level to question the law of causality. But just because we can’t predict cause and effect among subatomic particles, doesn’t mean that there is no cause and effect. That could be a matter of unpredictability rather than uncausality. In other words, the limits of our knowledge of the quantum level might be the issue. Moreover, any conclusion the atheist makes about the quantum level would use the very the law of causality he is questioning. That’s because his observations of the quantum level and his reasoning about it use the law of causality! While it is possible that causality does not apply at the quantum level, given the fact that the law seems universal everywhere else and the scientist uses it in all of his conclusions, why would anyone conclude it’s more plausible to believe that causality does not apply at the quantum level? Could it be because it helps one avoid God?
“Eternity Has the Floor:” Another Look at Pascal’s Wager
1. Does Truth Exist?, 2. Does God Exist?, 3. Are Miracles Possible?, 4. Is the NT True?, Atheism, CrossExaminedSilent you stand before the altar of death! Life here and life after constitute an eternal conundrum; but its expiring spark awakens us to holy devotion and quiets every other voice except religion. Eternity has the floor.
~Alfred Nobel: read at his funeral (1896)
The above words were spoken at Alfred Nobel’s funeral service in 1896. In life Nobel was an interesting but ironic man. He is remembered, of course as the Swiss chemist and engineer who invented dynamite among other things, and also the man whose name is associated with coveted prizes in physics, chemistry, literature and peace. Nobel was also an atheist, and yet he also left large sums of money to churches. In 1888 when Nobel was reading through a French newspaper, he was astonished to read about his own obituary – the heading was “The merchant of death has died.” As it turned out, it was actually his brother Ludwig that had died. It would only be eight years later that Alfred himself would die by a brain hemorrhage at age 63.
Apparently Nobel had given some thought to that moment when he would face his own mortality. It’s not a pleasant thought – thinking about one’s own death, but one day every person must stand in silence and enter that mysterious realm beyond this life on earth, or as Nobel says… that eternal conundrum…
The Old Testament patriarch Job pondered this question millennia ago when he asked, If a man dies, will he live again? (Job 14:14)
Atheists and materialists alike, stake their eternal souls on the belief and the affirmation that there is no afterlife or soul which survives the body after physical death. But is science equipped to answer such a question? Pascal would say no.
In the 17th Century (the 1600’s) a brilliant Frenchman (child prodigy, pioneering mathematician, inventor of the world’s first mechanical calculator, philosopher and scientist)[1] named Blaise Pascal put forth a rather strange argument for religious faith – and not just generic religious faith, but faith in full orbed Christianity.[2]
This is Pascal’s famous argument called “The Wager” (or The Bet).
But first let’s clear up a common misconception and make one clarification about Pascal’s famous Wager.
(1). He is not proposing “faith in faith” (a blind leap in the dark), but assumes that we have our data correct (faith is only as good as its object) – i.e. that the true God is the God of Christianity and that salvation is found only in a belief in Jesus Christ and that rejection of Him will result in eternal damnation.[3]
(2) Similar to the above notion – the Wager should not be considered in complete isolation from the larger work of Pascal’s Pensees (his apologetic for Christianity).
As philosopher James R. Peter’s observes, “Properly understood, the wager makes a compelling but limited point….”[4]
Kreeft clarfies:
“The Wager is not an attempt to prove the God exists. It is not a new argument for the existence of God. Rather it tries to prove that it is eminently reasonable for anyone to “bet” on God, to hope that God is, to invest his life in God. It moves on the practical, existential, human level rather than the theoretical, metaphysical, theological level. …It is not an alternative to the traditional arguments for the existence of God… [the Wager]…is addressed to unbelievers, to those who are skeptical of both theoretical reason and revelation.”[5]
What Pascal’s Wager highlight’s is the fact that we are all “in the game” – there is no neutrality on the question of God’s existence or of eternal salvation in Jesus Christ.
He writes:
“Let us examine this point, and let us say: ‘Either God is or he is not.’ But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance a coin is being spun which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong.
Do not then condemn as wrong those who have made a choice… ‘No, but I will condemn them for not having made this particular choice, but any choice, for although one calls heads and the other one are equally at fault, the fact is that they are both at fault: the right thing is not to wager at all.’
Yes, but you must wager. There is no choice, you are already committed. What will you choose then? Let us see: since a choice must be made, let us see which offers you the least interest. You have two things to lose: the true and the good: and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness.”[6]
Finally and interestingly, the Wager comes down to a pleasure (or a happiness) calculus – which appeals to what a person has the potential to gain from such a wager.
Here is what is at stake.
A. God exists (& Christianity is true)
B. God does not exist (Christianity is not true)
If Christianity is true then those who don’t believe it have everything to lose. But if it is not true then nothing, in the end, is lost to the pious believer. It is really the unbeliever who has more to lose if they are wrong.
Pensee 241 provides a good summary:
I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true [& it not actually be true].
On death’s threshold “eternity has the floor,” then religious questions don’t seem so silly after all.
What will you choose then?
[1] For an old but excellent biography of Pascal’s life see Morris Bishop’s classic, Pascal: The Life of Genius (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1936)
[2] See his Pensees, 418.
[3] For more on this point see Peter Kreeft’s excellent book, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensees Edited, Outlined & Explained (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), pp. 292-3.
[4] James R. Peters, The Logic of the Heart: Augustine, Pascal, and the Rationality of Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 188-9.
[5] Kreeft, pg. 291 [emphasis mine].
[6] “233” in Pensees, Translated by W.F. Trotter, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Editor in Chief, Great Books of the Western World, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 213-6 [emphasis mine].
Human Design Blindly Echoes Design in Nature
Debates, Theology and Christian Apologetics“Gears” from a plant hopping insect.
Scientists continually tell us that certain features found in nature are not “designed” but are the product of unguided evolutionary development. In his book The Blind Watchmaker biologist Richard Dawkins curiously has to remind his readers and warn them that some things in nature may appear designed when in fact they are not. He wrote that, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
A recent article posted by Christian apologist, Melissa Cain Travis, offers some compelling reasons that nature is in fact, designed. Many of these designs are copied either unconsciously or consciously (via the science of Biomimicry) by humans. The most reasonable inference is that these designs come from an Intelligent Creator.
You can read about it here
A Universe from Nothing? Dr. Krauss Explains Nothing
2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian ApologeticsIf Dr. Richard Dawkins is the atheist’s rock star of biology, Dr. Lawrence Krauss is the atheist’s rock star of physics (maybe only second to Stephen Hawking). An engaging speaker and winsome personality, Dr. Krauss is a theoretical physicist and professor at Arizona State University. In his book A Universe from Nothing, Krauss seeks to answer the age-old question, “Why is there something rather than nothing” without reference to God.
Dr. Krauss says the cause of the universe is not God—it is “nothing.” He cites happenings at the quantum level to dispense with the need for God. (The quantum level is the world of the extremely small, subatomic in size.)
Now, whenever you hear something that just doesn’t sound right, you ought to ask the person making the claim, “What do you mean by that?” In this case, the precise question to Dr. Krauss would be, “What do you mean by ‘nothing’?”
It turns out that Dr. Krauss’ definition of “nothing” is not the “nothing” from which the universe originated. The initial starting point of the universe was not the quantum vacuum that Dr. Krauss keeps referring to in his book. The starting point was non-being– literally no thing. Since no thing isn’t anything, there are no properties to work with. Nothing is, as Aristotle put it, what rocks dream about. Unless someone powerful intervenes, the ancient maxim still stands: out of nothing, nothing comes.
A quantum vacuum, on the other hand, is something—it consists of fields of fluctuating energy from which particles appear to pop in and out of existence. Whether these particles are uncaused, or are caused but are merely unpredictable to us, is unknown. There are ten different models of the quantum level, and no one knows which is correct. What we do know is that, whatever is happening there, it is not creation out of nothing. Moreover, the vacuum itself had a beginning and therefore needs a cause.
Lest you think I am mad to question the physics of Dr. Krauss, please note that I am more questioning his logic, which is required to do science of any kind. Dr. Krauss is committing the logical fallacy known as equivocation—that is using the same word in an argument but with two different definitions. The “nothing” in the title of Dr. Krauss’ book is not the “nothing” from which the universe came.
This critical distinction was not lost on fellow atheist Dr. David Albert. A Ph.D. in theoretical physics, Dr. Albert is a Professor at Columbia University and author of the book Quantum Mechanics and Experience. In his scathing review of Krauss’ book in the New York Times, Dr. Albert questions both Krauss’ logic and his physics. He pulls no punches and even uses his fist to illustrate.
Commenting on Krauss’ central claim that particles emerging from the quantum vacuum are like creation out of nothing, Dr. Albert writes:
Speaking of fists, Dr. Albert lands the knockout blow to Krauss’ entire thesis this way, “But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right.” (It’s important to note that Dr. Albert and Columbia University are not known for Christian fundamentalism.)
Now Dr. Krauss didn’t take all this lying down. He got up off the canvas and fought back by calling Dr. Albert “a moronic philosopher.”[iii]
Well, that solves that then. If the guy’s a moron, the non-moron must be right. Right? Actually, on several occasions in this book, Dr. Krauss confuses even non-moronic readers when he admits Dr. Albert’s point in advance—namely, that the “nothing” Krauss is talking about is not exactly the nothing from which the universe came. Dr. Krauss even puts his “nothing” in quotation marks like I just did.
In an interview, Krauss acknowledges that no matter how one defines “nothing,” the laws of physics are not nothing (sorry to keep using the word nothing, but there’s nothing else to use!). And although he’s clearly annoyed doing so, Dr. Krauss eventually gets around to admitting that his “nothing” is actually something.
So if Dr. Krauss admits all this, why the bait and switch title: “A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing”? Why smuggle in the laws of physics and the quantum vacuum and then call it “nothing”? Why diss philosophers who are only trying to bring the book’s assertions back to reality?
Dr. Krauss seems to think that philosophers are not talking about reality, when in fact, that’s exactly what philosophy is—the study of ultimate reality. The problem for Krauss is two-fold.
First, reality is not merely physical stuff. Since nature and the laws of physics themselves had a beginning, ultimate reality is beyond nature or supernatural. So despite claiming to explain how the universe came from nothing, Krauss has explained nothing.
The second problem is a far more serious intellectual disease that infects the thinking of Krauss and several other prominent atheists as well. This disease is so severe that it threatens the accuracy of the very science they seek to promote. Krauss, like Dawkins and Hawking, are dismissive of philosophy.
Now, having studied a lot of wacky philosophy myself, I sympathize with them. But the existence of wacky philosophy doesn’t discredit the existence of good philosophy any more than the existence of wacky science discredits the existence of good science. While it is true that one can use bad philosophy, it is impossible to use no philosophy.
In fact—and this is the essential point—Krauss, Dawkins and the like can’t do science without philosophy. While scientists are usually seeking to understand physical cause and effect, science itself is built on philosophical principles that are not physical themselves—they are beyond the physical (metaphysical). Those principles help the scientist make precise definitions and clear distinctions and then interpret all the relevant data rationally.
What exactly is relevant? What exactly is rational? What exactly is the best interpretation of the data –including what exactly is or isn’t “nothing”? Those questions are all answered through the use of philosophy. (Perhaps that’s why the “Ph.” in Ph.D. stands for “philosophy.” The originators of advanced degrees knew that philosophy is the foundation of every area of inquiry.)
Einstein had an observation about the man of science. He said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.” Unfortunately, if you abandon good philosophy you end up with bad science. And if you disdain all philosophy, as Krauss and company tend to do, then you put yourself in the self-defeating position of holding a philosophy that disdains all philosophy. You can’t get away from philosophy. It’s like logic. To deny it is to use it.
In the end, despite the lofty promises of his book’s title, Dr. Krauss explains nothing about the ultimate origin of the universe.
Notes
[i] Opening statement of Lawrence Krauss in his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-state-university#ixzz2bwKlOhe1. See also Dr. Krauss’ book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, Atria Books, 2012,Chapter 10.
[ii] David Albert, “On the Origin of Everything ‘A Universe From Nothing,’ by Lawrence M. Krauss,” The New York Times, March 23, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0.
[iii] Ross Anderson, “Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?”. The Atlantic, April 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/print/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/.
[iv] Ross Anderson, Ibid.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
God’s Crime Scene: Cold-Case…Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Paperback), (Mp4 Download), and (DVD Set) by J. Warner Wallace
God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design (mp4 Download Set) by J. Warner Wallace
God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design in Biology DVD Set by J. Warner Wallace
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler
Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation. His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case