Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

Last updated on: January 2, 2013 at 10:06 am by Daniel Harrell

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? 2013-01-02T10:06:44-04:00 Daniel Harrell

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In circles wherein I tend to travel, this existential question, along with its companion query on human consciousness, serves as a theological bulwark against which atheism crumbles. So naturally I was drawn to Jim Holt’s bestseller on the question. Serving as an “existential detective,” Holt seeks first to define “nothing” (no small task), and then proceeds to engage a number of philosophers and others regarding our existence.

It’s been a mind-numbing slog, mostly because what may be a simple question to ask proves almost impossible to frame.

One issue that Holt takes up in the assumption that the simple answer is most likely the truer answer. Again, theologians have counted on this maxim for centuries since to say “God did it” serves as the simplest answer of all (unless you actually believe in God, that is). The theological assumption follows the existential premise that nothingness is simpler than something and therefore must be the default state of things. Philosopher of science Adolf Grünbaum from the University of Pittsburgh forcefully pushes back. The existential premise is itself theological, deriving from the second century doctrine of creation that asserts the Lord created the heavens and earth ex nihilo, out of sheer nothingness. Grünbaum complained:

“I’ll grant that nothingness may be the simplest conceptually. But even if it is, why should this simplicity— this presumed simplicity— mandate the realization of the Null World in the absence of an overriding cause? What makes simplicity into an ontological imperative?” It has become a “veritable mantra that the simplicity of nothingness makes it objectively more probable. “Certain scientists and philosophers gawk at the world and say, ‘We just know that simpler theories are more likely to be true.’ But that’s just their psychological baggage, their heuristic mode. It has nothing at all to do with the objective world. Look at chemistry. In ancient times, Thales held that all chemistry was based on a single element, water. When it comes to simplicity, Thales’s theory wins hand over fist against Mendeleyev’s nineteenth-century ‘polychemistry,’ which posits a whole periodic table of elements. But Mendeleyev’s theory is the one that matches reality.” Holt, Jim (2012-07-09). Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story (pp. 69-70). Norton. Kindle Edition.

I find some comfort in this. As one who has never thought God to be a simple answer to anything, I appreciate that the complex reality we inhabit might actually (and more accurately) testify to a God whose ways defy my own ability to explain. Grünbaum, of course, would ask why we need explanations? Not a bad question coming from a devout atheist.

Daniel Harrell

Previous Post

December 31, 2012

Larks that Cannot Sing: The Work of Claudia Alvarez

Next Post

January 8, 2013 In Memoriam

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Alex Blondeau Authors Daniel Harrell Daniel Siedell Dawn Duncan Harrell Kyle Roberts Uncategorized Wyndy Corbin

Select a Month November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What prophet multiplied a widow's jar of oil so she could pay her debts?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Amos Elijah Elisha Micah