Hawking And Atheism

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Copy and Paste from my FB status:

Hawking's argument for atheism: "science now shows the universe was created from nothing." My response: "yeah, created ex nihilo, duh. The Church has been teaching that for 2,000 years. The question, doc, is created by whom? The universe can't have created itself; something that doesn't yet exist can't do anything, much less create itself. Epic metaphysics fail."

Discuss.

[Sarah147]

Reminds me of Biology in high school. In my Biology book, there was a fly-meat experiment that proved flies can't create out of no where, that flies come from flies. It proves there had to be something [i]beyond creation[/i] that set everything in motion (like the Big Bang theory), namely, God. Before creation, always in existence.

"For centuries, people based their beliefs on their interpretations of what they saw going on in the world around them without testing their ideas to determine the validity of these theories — in other words, they didn’t use the scientific method to arrive at answers to their questions. Rather, their conclusions were based on untested observations.

Among these ideas, since at least the time of Aristotle (4th Century BC), people (including scientists) believed that simple living organisms could come into being by [b]spontaneous generation[/b]. This was the idea that non-living [i]objects[/i] can give rise to living [i]organisms[/i]. It was common “knowledge” that simple organisms like worms, beetles, frogs, amd salamanders could come from dust, mud, etc., and food left out, quickly “swarmed” with life."

[url="http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm"]http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm[/url]

[Gregorius]

I can go that deep into the argument yet, but here's an article I recently read that explains it better than I ever could:
[url="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe"]From First Things.[/url]



[quote]The salient point has to do with how quantum mechanics works. In quantum mechanics one always considers some physical “system”, which has various possible “quantum states”, and which is governed by certain well-defined “dynamical laws.” These dynamical laws that govern the particular system and the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics allow one to calculate the probability that the system will make a transition from one of its states to another. To take a simple example, the system might be an atom of hydrogen, and its states would be the different “energy levels” of the atom.

The highly speculative idea is that these ways of thinking can be applied to entire universes, which is what Hawking (and many others) have tried to do. For physicists (as opposed to theologians and metaphysicians) the concept of the universe does not refer to “all there is” or the “totality of things.” It refers to a single, self-contained physical structure, comprising a “spacetime manifold” and particles and other things moving around in that spacetime.

If one thinks of a universe as a particular structure, then one can imagine a multiplicity of universes, with universes coming into and going out of existence in various ways. For example, a new universe might split off from an already existing universe in a manner analogous to the way a small balloon can be “pinched off” from a larger balloon. Or one can imagine a universe starting off as a point of zero size (which is, in effect, no universe at all) and then growing continuously to some finite size.

By such processes, the number of universes can change. However, we need to keep in mind the special way in which physicists use the concept of “universe,” for these various universes are really features of a single overarching physical system—call it a “system of universes”. When the number of universes changes, it is because that single overarching system has undergone a transition from one of its “quantum states” to another. Such transitions are precisely governed by dynamical laws (assumed to include the laws of quantum mechanics). These laws would govern not only how many universes there were, but the characteristics of these universes, such as how many dimensions of space they could have and what kinds of matter and forces they could contain.

Some states of the system of universes would correspond to just one universe being in existence; others to two universes, and so on. And there would also be a state with no universe in existence. The dramatic possibility Hawking is considering (and many others before him) is that such a system might make a transition from its “no-universe state” to a state with one or more universes.

Would this be “creation” in the sense that theologians mean it? And in particular, would it be creation ex nihilo, creation from nothing?

The answer is no. First of all, one isn’t starting from “nothing.” The “no-universe state” as meant in these speculative scenarios is not nothing, it is a very definite something: it is one particular quantum state among many of an intricate rule-governed system. This no-universe state has specific properties and potentialities defined by a system of mathematical laws.

[/quote]

[strgzr00]

Well, that discussion went far. A long cut-and-paste from [i]First Things.
[/i]
I think that Hawkings is not so much arguing against causality as giving atheists a justification for not believing in causality. It's not an attack.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Gregorius' timestamp='1284234127' post='2171948']
I can go that deep into the argument yet, but here's an article I recently read that explains it better than I ever could:
[url="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/much-ado-about-ldquonothingrdquo-stephen-hawking-and-the-self-creating-universe"]From First Things.[/url]
[/quote]
More or less my point, but having all the simple explanations of quantum mechanics helps! Thanks!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='strgzr00' timestamp='1284235942' post='2171964']
Well, that discussion went far. A long cut-and-paste from [i]First Things.
[/i]
I think that Hawkings is not so much arguing against causality as giving atheists a justification for not believing in causality. It's not an attack.
[/quote]
Long? That was short.

Anyway, there is no escaping causality. A universe without causality cannot exist.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Raphael' timestamp='1284236124' post='2171967']Long? That was short.

Anyway, there is no escaping causality. A universe without causality cannot exist.[/quote]Causality is assumed, its circular reasoning based on casual observations, see the works of David Hume. Its an assumption that many of us make out of practical reasons, but following logic strictly its at best an assumption. Apart of why the cosmological argument for the existence of God lists in its premise causality, a doctor of philosophy once pointed out its curious the extents some attempt to give certainty to causality only to conclude the cosmological argument with something that was not caused. Which is sometimes called "special pleading".

From a scientist's perspective its not necessary to know or even speculate on the origin of the universe. However it is something that scientists are free and welcomed to study, investigate,and speculate on. We shouldn't be expecting Scientists to look to a religious text or to religious persons to confirm their findings. I've also heard and read that discoveries in quantum physics seems to suggest partials can virtually come out of no where and go back into no where...

Perhaps the problem I find with calling causality a certainty is what David Hume argued and likewise the doctor of philosophy did, the language and vocabulary of the idea enables itself. For example if you ask, "[i]if you look at creation, can't we assume there is a creator?[/i]" Well of course, "creation" implies "creator". Akin to asking, "[i]is something illegal against the law?[/i]" Again, yes because illegal implies against the law. So when we lay out cause and effect in order, it appears we are just arbitrarily calling one cause and one effect merely based on where they appear in that line. Casually that might be acceptable but not in logic, merely because two events happen near the same time doesn't necessarily relate them, its an informal logic fallacy. Also when we think of it events can be BOTH causes and effects, an effect can create a cause and a cause can create an effect. So... it does seem to me at least that the idea of causality is indeed self-enabling because of the presumptions made and the language used, but I admit its an assumption that I tend to follow as well.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1284238021' post='2171986']
So when we lay out cause and effect in order, it appears we are just arbitrarily calling one cause and one effect merely based on where they appear in that line. Casually that might be acceptable but not in logic, merely because two events happen near the same time doesn't necessarily relate them, its an informal logic fallacy. Also when we think of it events can be BOTH causes and effects, an effect can create a cause and a cause can create an effect. So... it does seem to me at least that the idea of causality is indeed self-enabling because of the presumptions made and the language used, but I admit its an assumption that I tend to follow as well.
[/quote]

Naturally, just because two events are contemporaneous (or nearly so) doesn't make them cause and effect. That would be a variation on [i]post hoc ergo propter hoc[/i]. However, that is not what causality says. Causality isn't based on that.

Causality is necessary because there must be a reason that everything is one way instead of another, even if that reason is random. Likewise, everything that exists must have a reason for existing, that is, there must be a reason it is, rather that not. Nothing happens for no reason at all, nor does anything exist for no reason.

Hawking is confusing the stuff from which the universe is made with Him by whom it was created. In a pantheistic understanding of theology, that makes sense. If the universe is God, then to prove the universe came from nothing is to prove that God was created, and therefore is no god at all. Atheism would be affirmed. However, that is not what we mean by God. We mean the First Cause, that which ordered the universe, and is separate from it, coming before it. He must exist because nothing can come into being without being caused, as we see daily with our own eyes and can deduce from natural reason. There must be something which caused the universe to come into being, and by definition, that could not be the universe itself.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

By the way, I have to reject Hume's causality, as his rationalist empiricism led him to a conclusion that causation is subjective perception. I find that 1) to be a cop-out by someone who can't prove causation empirically (typical of empiricists, they assume that if they can't prove it, it must not exist, which is nothing short of intellectual pride), and 2) unrealistic (even if my perception about a particular causal relationship is incorrect, something still caused x or y, they didn't act or come into being on their own). Hume's reasoning is silly, an attempt to explain away something he can't make sense of with his empiricist philosophy. It is no real answer at all.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Raphael' timestamp='1284242335' post='2172006']Naturally, just because two events are contemporaneous (or nearly so) doesn't make them cause and effect. That would be a variation on [i]post hoc ergo propter hoc[/i]. However, that is not what causality says. Causality isn't based on that.

Causality is necessary because there must be a reason that everything is one way instead of another, even if that reason is random. Likewise, everything that exists must have a reason for existing, that is, there must be a reason it is, rather that not. Nothing happens for no reason at all, nor does anything exist for no reason.

Hawking is confusing the stuff from which the universe is made with Him by whom it was created. In a pantheistic understanding of theology, that makes sense. If the universe is God, then to prove the universe came from nothing is to prove that God was created, and therefore is no god at all. Atheism would be affirmed. However, that is not what we mean by God. We mean the First Cause, that which ordered the universe, and is separate from it, coming before it. He must exist because nothing can come into being without being caused, as we see daily with our own eyes and can deduce from natural reason. There must be something which caused the universe to come into being, and by definition, that could not be the universe itself.[/quote]Your whole reply back is assuming what I mean causality is, which isn't quite relevant because I am sharing in the capacity of formal education in philosophy from a doctor of philosophy and David Hume. Consequentially you didn't touch on the issues of language. However you did what I mentioned before, you proposed a circular argument and made a special plea. To sum up your argument: [i]Everything needs a cause because everything must be caused by something; except God, because God is God.[/i] Circles complete, then special pleading.

The problem you face is that to be real within the realm of philosophy it must have both a negative and positive argument for and against it. That is why its called "cosmological [b][u]argument[/u][/b]", there are two sides to the argument and one should sufficiently understand both if one is going to use it well either way. I'm not saying you can't use the cosmological argument for God, but its definitely not a proof of God. You are sharing your beliefs on the matter, more of a theological opinion, and I was contributing more of a philosophical approach to the matter...

This isn't the debate board so I will assure you if you want to believe the cosmological argument proves God and that causality is a certainty, your welcome to.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I don't understand your reasoning. You think that things come into being on their own? You think that God is not the First Cause? You agree with Hume? Hume has no proof for his theory, by the way; his theory is made precisely because he can't find proof to the contrary. That is no basis for a theory.

Now, truth be told, I wasn't trying to make a certain argument philosophically for the Cosmological Argument. I was critiquing Hume, whose theory is poor.

As for the cosmological argument, it seems to me that from what we observe (and philosophy must be based on this, but Hume conveniently argues that we can't trust our senses and that causality is just in our heads), causality must exist. It stands to universal reason that nothing can make itself come into existence. Coming into existence means a change. Change requires a before and after. If x doesn't exist before, it cannot exist after all on its very own. Can I prove this empirically? Of course not, since I can't test everything that's ever come into existence. However, it is reasonable. The First Vatican Council stated de fide that we may know that God exists from the light of natural reason alone. An empiricist rejects this because his philosophy says that proof consists of empirical, measurable, repeatable lab tests, but not natural reason or common sense. I argue with Hume on this level: we may and indeed must trust natural reason, or else we rule out whole branches of philosophy and refuse to answer certain questions beyond the abilities of empirical science.

I would say the proposition "everything has a cause" is self-evident. Hume seems to doubt this because empiricism really can't believe in self-evident truths, except (perhaps) that I myself exist (which can't be empirically proven, but seems obvious enough). For Hume, there is no evidence that one billiard ball causes another to move when they strike, but this is because he has excluded the evidence as non-empirical. Yes, it is true that I believe one ball moves another because I've seen it happen many times before, but that doesn't mean the causality is just in my head. The rationalistic empirical skepticism implicit in Hume's thinking quite frankly makes me feel sorry for him. He was not willing to trust in common sense, that gift of God that allows us to see, discern, and apply metaphysical truths.

In any case, Hawking's views display a serious misunderstanding of Christian metaphysics. This won't stop knowledgeable Christians from believing in the First Mover and more than the Big Bang made them disbelieve in the Creator. He has only described a (theoretical) means of the origin of the universe, not that which created or utilized the means.

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

I haven't read all the replies (my apologies), but it seems that Mr. Cat takes the cosmological argument to be circular...One key premise of the cosmological argument is what is traditionally called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which states (in one version of it): "For any contingently true proposition, C, there exists some explanation, E, such that the truth of C is explained by E. If E is itself a contingent truth then it TOO will need some other explanation to explain why it is true...HOWEVER, if E is a necessary truth, then the PSR does not require that E have an explanation...WHICH is why adherents of the cosmological argument say God (a NECESSARY being) does not need a cause/explanation as to why he exists.

The truth of the PSR is often taken for granted by many philosophers...But here is a GOOD discussion of it. (See esp page 7: http://bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/RecentCosmoProgress.pdf)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Fiat_Voluntas_Tua' timestamp='1284256073' post='2172111']
I haven't read all the replies (my apologies), but it seems that Mr. Cat takes the cosmological argument to be circular...One key premise of the cosmological argument is what is traditionally called the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which states (in one version of it): "For any contingently true proposition, C, there exists some explanation, E, such that the truth of C is explained by E. If E is itself a contingent truth then it TOO will need some other explanation to explain why it is true...HOWEVER, if E is a necessary truth, then the PSR does not require that E have an explanation...WHICH is why adherents of the cosmological argument say God (a NECESSARY being) does not need a cause/explanation as to why he exists.

The truth of the PSR is often taken for granted by many philosophers...But here is a GOOD discussion of it. (See esp page 7: http://bearspace.baylor.edu/Alexander_Pruss/www/papers/RecentCosmoProgress.pdf)
[/quote]
Thanks!

[Fiat_Voluntas_Tua]

Also, as a side note, I do not think causation needs to be a necessary connection between cause and effect in order for there to be 'worth while' or 'real' causality. I think there is probabilistic causation, as my favorite analytic philosopher GEM Anscombe famously argued in her inaugural address, "Causation and Determinism". Also, I think it is true that smoking causes cancer, even though this is not necessary. I also think it is true that the laws of nature need not be exceptionless, so i think there can be exceptions to laws, e.g., "Salt dissolves in water", even though there are times when a given piece of salt does NOT dissolve in water (say when the water is supersaturated with salt, or the like). I think Hume was mistaken to think that in order for causation to be "real" it has to be necessary...error. (I differ to Anscombe on this...if you doubt me read her paper, I am sure it is online somewhere).

[Mark of the Cross]

Some of us are of the opinion that Mr Hawking would never have been heard of if it were not for teh fact that he is infirm, in a wheelchair and talks by way of a synthesiser. He would be just another dumb unknown scientist who can't see the forest for the tree's.

Physical things require a beginning and an end because the physical reality is bound by the parameter of time and therefore requires a cause outside of the physical reality. The spiritual reality is not constrained by time.