Lawrence Krauss Doesn’t Know Nothing–Literally

Last updated on: December 30, 2014 at 7:01 pm by Mark Shea

Lawrence Krauss Doesn’t Know Nothing–Literally 2014-12-30T19:01:46-07:00 Mark Shea

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.

One of the things the New Atheists have trouble coping with is the fact that they don’t really have a decent answer to the really basic questions. That’s why so much time is spent on the shell game of evolution as a “proof” that God doesn’t exist (though some, like Dawkins, are still smart enough to recall that you can’t prove a negative and therefore fall back on the less than clarion-like call to arms, “God probably doesn’t exist.”

The reason evolution (with which the Church has little difficulty, properly understood) is so popular as a sort of Founding Myth for the New Atheism is that is appears to combine within itself the two (and only) decent arguments for atheism. Thos arguments are (to quote St. Thomas):

Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist, because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word “God” means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God’s existence.

In short, 1. Bad crap happens like death ‘n stuff, so there’s no God and 2. Everything seems to work fine without God, so there’s no God. Devotees of the cult of reason, worshippers of the intellect, and similar braggarts about the three pound piece of meat behind the eyes love to ring the changes on these points and imagine they have thereby proven something. So we get mountains of verbiage from the Dawkinses of the world arguing in various ways that given the laws of time, space, matter and energy, living systems organize themselves, so there’s no God. And that’s beautiful–except at convenient times when the brutality of Nature red in tooth and claw shows the cruelty and idiocy of the Christian Creator, who doesn’t exist and is very horrible for making such an awful natural world.

Perhaps you’ve noticed the weak spot in that argument (okay, the *main* weak spot). It’s that word “given”. Given by whom? Why is there time, space, matter and energy? Why are there laws governing these things? Why are they intelligible to us? That the little problem facing the New Atheist, and in his unseemly haste he papers it over by declaring that SCIENCE can answer not just scientific questions, but all questions about everything in the universe, including philosophical and theological ones. This seems to invariably lead New Atheists away from sticking to the only two really good arguments for atheism and into the boondocks of really silly fallacies by which they hope to pad the case for the new atheism. The results can be most unfortunate.

Exhibit A: Lawrence Krauss, Apostle of Scientism with the latest attempt to deal with the essentially philosophical problem “Why is there anything?” He writes a new book which purports to explain how you can get Everything from Nothing without that pesky God. And so, of course, Richard Dawkins, who just gets dimmer every time he opens his mouth on these matters, trumpets from Zion:

“Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.”

To which Mike Flynn drily replies:

This encomium alone should be sufficient clue that there is less here than meets the eye.

How much less? Well, I’ll refer you Flynn for the whole autopsy on Krauss’ philosophically illiterate (and common sense impaired) book, but the money quote is here:

And indeed, Krauss does not tell us that the universe — the collection of everything that exists — comes from nothing. He tells us that it comes from arrangements of relativistic quantum fields. The alert reader will recognize that the fields are therefore the matter and their arrangement is the form. And that therefore there was not nothing.

The way it works is this. In relativity, physical matter (particles) are simply states of the field of Ricci tensors. Quoting Albert’s review:

According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.

Shazaam! The vacuum state being unstable, it will spontaneously decompose into a state with particles and — hey, presto! — we have something rather than nothing.

Of course, a vacuum state is not nothing. It is a quantum state. (And you cannot have a “state” without a thing to be in that state. A state of confusion implies that someone or something is confused. It’s the old medieval thingie “no white without a white thing.” No form without a matter to be informed.)

Krauss is confusing zero with nothing. Physicist Stephen Barr compared this a couple of years ago to a bank account.

There is a difference … between a bank account with no dollars in it and no bank account at all. To have a bank account, even one with a momentarily zero (or negative) balance, requires having a bank, an agreement with that bank, a monetary system, a currency, and banking laws. Similarly, to talk about states with various numbers of “universes” requires having a quantum system with different possible “states,” and laws determining the character of those states and governing the transitions among them. The term “the universe” should really be applied to this whole system with its laws, and not, as is misleadingly done in such discussions, to “space-times” that are coming into and going out of existence.

In short, Krauss says that there was Something (i.e. quantum fields) from which Everything comes. Something is not Nothing. And the question, “Why are their quantum fields, Ricci tensors, and vacuum states?” is not so much as touched.

Realizing this at some level, Krauss (who unlike Dawkins, at least perceives there is a problem) explains, “Shut up!” to theists with a marvelous bit of table-pounding sophistry. Flynn continues:

Krauss is aware of the argument outlined by Albert and by Barr and others; and he thinks it’s no fair. He complains that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious [sic] critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing’.” He feels that philosophers are trying to move the goal posts.

The problem is, it was the post-Cartesian scientists who moved the goal posts and that they “currently describe” “various versions” of “nothing” incorrectly does not change the fact that “nothing” means precisely what it says: no thing. That is, nothing is not a particular sort of thing any more than “no one” is a particular sort of person.

And how can there be “various versions” of nothing? I mean, c’mon!

Sorry, Charlie, but the folks who started the whole discussion of creatio ex nihilo used a particular and straightforward definition of nihil. If scientists are now equivocating on the term, confusing an analogous usage with a proper usage, that is the fault of their own imprecise thinking.

So, in the end, the worshippers of SCIENCE! are faced with the fact that just because all they have is a hammer does not render every question a nail. Science is very useful for measuring and forming judgements about time, space, matter and energy. The moment you start asking questions about things beyond that (and “Why is there anything?” is emphatically such a question) you need new tools. But sin makes even the cleverest people stupid, so guys like Krauss and Dawkins (and Stephen Hawking) manage to foolishly persuade themselves that there is no God, while simultaneously invoking a Law (one might even call it a Word) by which all things come into existence. Flynn remarks elsewhere:

So according to Hawking, there was a beginning; and in the beginning was the Law and the Law was all there was; and without the Law nothing came to be. And the Law was an immaterial being that was pure λογοϛ. And this Law gave form to the void of pure potency, prime matter.

Wait a minute…..

Something about that sounds awfully familiar. Didn’t someone say all that and say it more poetically a long time ago?
“In the beginning was the Word
and the Word was *with God,
and the Word *was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
And without him nothing came to be.”

But I don’t think Hawking realized he was paraphrasing that.

Every knee shall bow.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 28, 2012

While I'm scrambling with work

Next Post

March 28, 2012 The Counsel for Obamacare's Ringing Defense

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 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 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 September 2006 June 2006 July 2005 April 2005 May 2002 April 2002 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz