Carrier and the Universe

Dr. Carrier writes (taken from his site here):

(1) • What caused the universe to exist?

Fallacy of loaded question. It is not established that the universe began, and thus had a cause at all.

Our universe began (at the Big Bang) but we have no way of knowing anymore what if anything preceded that event. And as for what caused our one specific universe, we already know the answer to that: the Big Bang did (an event and process that completely eluded all divine Christian revelation for two thousand years, as well as all divine Muslim and Jewish revelation throughout the whole of their existence). As to what caused the Big Bang, we have many viable theories (from Hawking’s The Grand Design to Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing to Vilenkin’s Many Worlds in One, all of which predict and explain numerous strange and often specific features of the universe that no theology has ever been able to deduce from the hypothesis that God did it). As far as figuring out which one is right, cosmological scientists are working on it. They’ve made tremendous progress. Theology has made none.

If we revise the question to ask something more abstract like “Why does the universe exist?” (thus admitting that maybe it has always existed in some form, and thus was never ultimately “caused,” but asking instead “why” it exists instead of something else, or nothing at all), then the answer is the same as why a god is supposed to exist. (He just does? Then the universe just does. He exists necessarily? Then a universe exists necessarily. We can play this game forever.) If we revise the question into something conditional like, “If all existence itself began, then what caused it?,” then the answer is any of dozens of possible things, all of which have a vastly lower specified complexity than a complex intelligent mind and therefore have a far greater prior probability (see The God Impossible)–and by explaining observed evidence better, they also have a far greater posterior probability as well. This follows from the argument from scale, including the mind-boggling scale of this universe’s lethality and inhospitability to life (indeed the universe is far better designed to generate black holes than life).

I discuss all these facts throughout my entries in the Carrier-Wanchick Debate. I have more recently described ten possible causal or explanatory theories of why an orderly universe exists in previous comments on my blog (and we needn’t know which are true to know they are all simpler theories, and often based in more background evidence, than any god hypothesis). I more formally outline why the evidence (the nature of the universe we find ourselves in) is far more likely on any such godless hypothesis than on any rational form of theism in my chapter “Neither Life Nor the Universe Appear Intelligently Designed” in The End of Christianity (pp. 279-304). I’ll quote one key section of that to give you an idea of what I mean:

[T]his universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life—at all, but far more so intelligent life …. One way or another, a universe perfectly designed for life would easily, readily, and abundantly produce and sustain life. Most of the contents of that universe would be conducive to life or benefit life. Yet that’s not what we see. Instead, almost the entire universe is lethal to life—in fact, if we put all the lethal vacuum of outer space swamped with deadly radiation into an area the size of a house, you would never find the comparably microscopic speck of area that sustains life (it would literally be smaller than a single proton). It’s exceedingly difficult to imagine a universe less conducive to life than that—indeed, that’s about as close to being completely incapable of producing life as any random universe can be expected to be, other than of course being completely incapable of producing life. (pp. 295-96)

And yet…

That is exactly what we would have to see if life arose by accident. Because life can arise by accident only in a universe that large and old. The fact that we observe exactly what the theory of accidental origin requires and predicts is evidence that our theory is correct. (p. 290)

Because without a God, life can only exist by chemical accident, such a chemical accident will be exceedingly rare, and exceedingly rare things only commonly happen in vast universes where countless tries are made over vast spans of time. Likewise, a universe not designed for us will not look well suited to us but be almost entirely unsuited to us and we will survive only in a few tiny chance pockets of survivable space in it. Atheism thus predicts, with near 100% certainly, several bizarre features of the universe (it’s vast size and age and lethality to life), whereas we cannot deduce any of those features from any non-gerrymandered God hypothesis (while gerrymandered hypotheses all grossly violate Occam’s Razor).

My Reply

            Dr. Carrier is quite mistaken to say, “Our universe began (at the Big Bang) but we have no way of knowing anymore what if anything preceded that event” since he would have to know the limits of knowledge to make such a claim. In which case, Dr. Carrier would be inconsistent claiming to know what cannot be known.

Dr. Carrier tells us,

“As to what caused the Big Bang, we have many viable theories (from Hawking’s The Grand Design to Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing to Vilenkin’s Many Worlds in One, all of which predict and explain numerous strange and often specific features of the universe that no theology has ever been able to deduce from the hypothesis that God did it). As far as figuring out which one is right, cosmological scientists are working on it. They’ve made tremendous progress. Theology has made none.”

         It is strange how Dr. Carrier doesn’t explain in what ways these alternative theories can evade the absolute beginning of the universe. Perhaps it is because they, in fact, cannot. All of the models, he mentions, still conclude the absolute beginning of the universe. Dr. Carrier talks of the universe just existing inexplicably, which amounts to an arbitrary claim. He also discusses the possibility of the universe having necessary existence.This is obviously false since we can rationally imagine there being no universe. The universe did not have to exist. 

           Moreover, the theology and tone, Dr. Carrier wishes to criticize as “the hypothesis that God did it” is a naive understanding of Christian theology and philosophy. It is naive as if one characterized the metaphysical naturalism of Dr. Carrier as "the hypothesis that nature did it." But is God to be treated as merely a hypothesis? As Christians we understand all things are created and sustained by God’s direct providence.  So in this sense all things can be explain by God; but that taken by itself, especially for Christian scientists, can be somewhat trivial. This is why science focuses on God’s indirect providence with God’s direct providence as its foundation. That is to say science graphs the interactions and relations between secondary causes with the necessary assumption of God as the primary cause. Sound Christian theology and philosophy does not start with God as merely a hypothesis, but as a necessary prerequisite for even hypothesizing. There is a significant difference between the two. The former starts with God as a hypothesis to make experiments and predictions to confirm or falsify God. The latter starts with God as a presupposition necessary to even account for hypothesizes, experiments, predictions, confirmations, or falsifications. I sense, here, Dr. Carrier would say both views amount merely to the arbitrary claim, namely “God did it.” But Christians’ are certainly not making an arbitrary claim. Quite the contrary, Christians are arguing the very fact that arbitrariness is a key intellectual sin is due to God being the starting-point. God, who himself is rational, created us to reflect His nature. Since we are made in His image to be rational, we (have a reason to) object to arbitrariness. The very charge of arbitrariness, Dr. Carrier wishes to pin on Christianity, exposes the fact he is made in the image of God. Is the Christian claim arbitrary though? It must be a resounding no! Christianity as a worldview is coherent and self-justifying. The problem is naturalists preclude Christianity from being true simply on the basis of their faith in metaphysical naturalism. Still it is worth asking, why is an arbitrary answer insufficient for Dr. Carrier? Why isn’t an arbitrary answer preferred over a rational one? I bet he’d answer along the lines that a person ought to have reasons for what she believes. A person has the epistemic responsibility to acquire reasons to form beliefs. If he would say these things no appeal to natural selection can explain where these rational obligations and responsibilities come from.  

        Dr. Carrier uses probability theory to say certain theories make it more probable that the universe would arise from nothing by nothing in the way it exists presently. Yet he neglects to mention the highly unreliable nature of probability theory given the background information needed to accurately represent and calculate any given thing. 

He talks a lot about order which cannot be rightly accounted for given the requirement of chance to explain the universe from metaphysical naturalism. 

Why Dr. Carrier quibbles about sticking to Ockam’s razor is nonsense from naturalism.

For a different take on some of the same issues discussed here check out my posts here and here. 

Questions for Theists

I stumbled upon this article by Jeffery Lowder at the Secular Outpost Blog here.

I figured I'd start answering some of the questions. I will try to answer them from a Clarkian perspective (on my other blog here).

The question “Why is there something rather than nothing” presupposes “nothing” as being the normal state of affairs. Why believe that? Why can’t we flip the question on its head? In other words, why can’t it be the case that the normal state of affairs is for things to actually exist and nothingness itself would be weird.


When it is said, “things actually exist” in what manner do they exist? Do they exist contingently or necessarily? I do not believe there is any possible world, or state of affairs in which nothing could exist, since God is a necessary being, He exists in all possible worlds and states of affairs. But for the naturalist, he must affirm the necessary existence of the, parts or whole, universe or multi-verse.    


Given that the universe has a finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time?


If time were infinite, then, there would be an actual infinite series of events. Events can simply be moments of time or temporal parts; in any case, an actual infinite series of events are impossible. Since an actual infinite series of events would require an infinite series of events to elapse before this present moment. But if an actual infinite series of events occur before this present event, then this present event will never occur. With the existence of this present moment we properly conclude that time, like space and matter, is finite.  


But if we assume time is eternal then are we not thereby committed to the eternality of space and matter? But this still pushes the fundamental question back further. Is time contingent or necessary?  We obviously can imagine a state of timelessness so time cannot be thought of as necessary.


Christians can account for time either way. Presentists can either affirm time necessarily is an attribute of God or part of contingent creation. Eternalists argue God eternally created time, hence it’s a contingent property. In what way does the naturalist account for time?   


Why is so much of our universe intelligible without any appeal to supernatural agency? Why does the history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones?


Intelligibility presupposes God. Presuppositionalists have been pointing this out for years. The very laws of logic, mathematics, knowledge, consciousness, induction, intentionality and freedom all have been taken as examples of the general principle that human thought and experience presupposes God. Science assumes God exists from the very start so it is unnecessary for the discipline to explain things in terms of God’s direct providence. Instead, it is to explain things in terms of God’s indirect providence as secondary causes.

Why is the physical universe so unimaginably large?


It is to bring glory to God. It is ostensive to God’s majesty.

If you believe that visual beauty is evidence of God, why isn’t the universe saturated with auditory, tactile, or other non-visual types of sensory beauty?

Who says it doesn’t? Many sensations in themselves are forms of beauty. Maybe the film Equilibrium illustrates this point well. Moreover, it does not logically follow that if God created beauty in the world God must create the whole world beautiful. Nor does such a view take into account God’s purposes.  
 
If you believe the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life, why isn’t our universe teeming with life, including life much more impressive than human life?


Who is to say it isn’t? Impressive by whom? This wasn’t God’s chief end in creation.

Why would God use biological evolution as a method for creation? 

Who said he did? But even if we grant that he did, He could have sufficient reasons for doing so.  
 
Why would God desire to create embodied moral agents, as opposed to unembodied minds (such as souls, spirits, or ghosts)?


God wanted to create humans to accomplish His will.

Why is the human mind dependent on the physical brain?


We have brains we use to think. Much like a musician uses an instrument to play music. It makes us physical. But we are not merely physical we are also spiritual. Five reasons can be given for this. First, our brains are affected by our thoughts. Second, if we think of a physical object, say, like a toaster, and a neurosurgeon opens up our brains, there would be no object in it.  Third, our brains change but our minds do not. Forth, the only people that have access to their own thoughts are themselves. People have to ask what others are thinking. There is no way to know what a person is thinking without asking her. Fifth, we can think “about” things. We can think about what we want. So if the mind is merely the brain then there is no freedom. Actions, thoughts, and beliefs (including the belief that the mind is the brain) are a byproduct of chemical processes in the brain.     


Did Australopithecus have a soul? What about homo habilis? Homo erectus? Neanderthals? Why or why not? (HT: Keith Parsons)


If they didn’t they were robots.


How do souls interact with physical matter? Do you have any answer that is not tantamount to “I don’t know?” (HT: Keith Parsons)


Well, before I can adequately answer the question I must ask, how does a person lift his arm? Is it chemicals in the brain that force him/her to lift it? Or is it simply, the person chooses to lift his arm? If you grant the possibility that a person can lift his arm by simply willing it, I see no logical reason to not think also God could create humans with souls that can command their bodies to perform actions. What is the natural mechanism that allows the body and mind to interact? This question rides on a category mistake. But why even think there must be a mechanism for them to interact? If a mechanism must be given, which I don’t see why logically it must, certainly if God sustains the universe, He can sustain the interaction between the body and soul. Perhaps Parson’s wants to know precisely how God sustains both. God has not revealed this, nor is it clear we could even understand with our limited finite minds. But God’s providence is a sufficient general explanation for how the body and mind interact. Parson’s begs the question if he thinks my account is insufficient, since it does not fit his naturalistic criteria of what, he thinks, is an adequate explanation.          
 
If you believe humans have free will, why would humans have free will if God exists? Why are we able to exercise free will in some situations but not others?


It depends on what is meant by “free will”? If by it one means the ability to choose what one most desires, then yes, we have freedom. It is the kind of freedom that is compatible with God’s providence. We can exercise freedom in some cases and not others because we are sinful in a fallen world.  


Why are pain and pleasure so connected to the biological goals of survival and reproduction, but morally random?

Biological goals? If naturalism is true there is no goals in nature. It is all random chance. Pain and pleasure can have different moral statuses based on the commandments of God.


Is there some greater good that logically requires (or logically requires risking) that suffering be used to motivate animals to pursue the biological goal of self-preservation?

Are animals and humans intrinsically valuable? Do they have moral worth? God created us intrinsically valuable with instincts such as self-preservation.


Does some moral end make it desierable for suffering to continue even when it serves no biological purpose? 

Biological purpose? Notice you are borrowing teleological language. If God has a morally sufficient reason, which I believe he does, it is reasonable to think there is. 
 
Why do only a fraction of living things, including the majority of sentient beings, thrive? In other words, why do very few living things have an adequate supply of food and water, are able to reproduce, avoid predators, and remain  healthy? Why would God create a world in which all sentient  beings savagely compete with one another for survival? Why do an even smaller fraction of organisms thrive for most of their lives? Why do almost no organisms thrive for all of their lives? 
Why is there social evil, i.e., instances of pain or suffering that results from the game-theoretic interactions of many individuals? 


Why does God allow horrific suffering (and relatively little glorious pleasure)?


Why does horrific suffering often destroy a person, at least psychologically, and prevent them from growing morally, spiritually, and intellectually?


See my post God, why is there evil?

Why does the the relatively new discipline of cognitive science of religion support the claim that we have a Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD), which causes human beings to naturally form beliefs about invisible agents? Considering HADD’s poor track record of producing true beliefs about invisible agents in general, why should we trust it when it produces a belief about one invisible agent, the God of theism?

This is fallacious. It begs the question, makes a hasty generalization, and fails to discredit the belief in question on the grounds of its origin. 

Why should we believe that, of the innumerable deities worshipped by human beings over the ages, yours is the one that really exists?  Why believe in Yahweh rather than Zeus, Odin, Marduk, Ishtar, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Madame Pele, Ahura-Mazda, etc., etc., etc.? (HT: Keith Parsons)

Well, there are no good reasons for me to believe in Zeus, Odin, Marduk, Ishtar, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Madame Pele, or Ahura-Mazda. However, I have good reasons to believe Christianity is true (e.g. common objections). Furthermore, to ask such a question is to falsely make a hasty generalization.