The first article of faith in Michael Palmer’s “The Atheist’s Creed” is that he believes, echoing Carl Sagan, that “the cosmos is all that is or ever was and ever will be.” (Palmer 2012:5) “The fact of the matter is that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing” (Smith 1993: 135), so we are told by Quentin Smith.
Was Bertrand Russell correct in deeming that “the universe is just there, and that’s all” [1]? Why are some atheists repelled by the concept of the cosmic beginning? It is time to ponder. Keeping my post short, I have divided this article in two parts, part I Cosmic Beginning and part II Cosmic Genesis.
Eternal Universe: Religious Atheists’ Article of Faith
Michael Ruse quoted Ernst Mayr’s noteworthy observation: “People forget that it is possible to be intensely religious in the entire absence of theological belief.” (Ruse 2003: 335) To avoid painting all atheists with a single stroke, an explanation of what I mean by the oxymoron “religious atheists,” as used in this article, is required.
By religious atheists, I mean atheists who still hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe to avoid the cosmic beginning, even though, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin put it, “[a]ll the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning” (Grossman 2012: 7). Five years earlier Vilenkin contended,
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. (Vilenkin 2006: 176)
In 1978 Paul C. W. Davies explained how the boundary to space-time at the cosmic beginning inferred from the implication of reversing the expanding universe. He wrote,
If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space- time, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself. (Davies 1978: 78-9)
Religious atheists are not convinced by philosophical arguments or by proof of cosmic beginning. Victor J. Stenger’s commitment to a possibility of eternal universes, I believe, is a good example of a religious atheist. Contending that we should find evidence from astronomy and physics if God were its creator, which he argued that we do not, he asserted that “ modern cosmology suggests an eternal ‘multiverse’ in which many other universes comes and go” (Stenger 2012: 47)
Russell’s observation and critique of Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause cosmological argument for the existence of God, namely “[i]f everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.” (Russell 1927: n.p), which I believe was on the mark if the case was that “everything that exists has a cause,” can be excused since only arguments were present in Russell’s era.
I think Russell would probably have reconsidered his position if he were presented with Muhammad al-Ghazali’s (ca.1058–1111) form of cosmological argument, namely, “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [2], since al-Ghazali’s version is unaffected by Russell’s objection. If not convinced with arguments for the beginning of the universe, Russell would probably have changed his mind given that the proof that the universe had a beginning is now in place as cosmologist Vilenkin informed.
Russell would probably take a similar route that Quentin Smith took. Smith accepted the data that “[t]he physical sciences indicate that the universe began to exist with a big bang, an explosion of matter and energy that occurred about 15 billion years ago” and admitted that “[a]n atheist may hold that it is uncaused, as I used to believe” and considered that “if the theist can formulate a compelling causal explanation of the big bang explosion, then the atheist should believe the big bang does have a cause.” (Smith 2007: 184-5)
Even though he agreed with the first part of Kalam cosmological argument, which set to show that the universe began to exist, Smith believes that “there is a sound “atheistic” second part that shows that the universe is self-caused.” [3] (ibid 182) Peter Atkins holds a similar stance, which he christened, “Cosmic bootstrap,” namely, “Space-time generates its own dust in the process of its own self-assembly.” (Atkins 1994: 143)
Why do some atheists fear the cosmic beginning? I attempted to answer this question in my second part: Cosmic Genesis And Grousing Of Religious. Atheists. I welcome your thoughts on this question in the comments below.
[1] Bertrand Russell 1948 BBC Radio Broadcast. Debate With Frederick C. Copleston
[2] Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Archaeologie Orientale 46 1947: 203 Quoted in Craig’s On Guard
[3] Smith explained what he meant by self-cause “My Kalam cosmological argument has for its conclusion that the beginning of the universe’s existence is self-caused. “B is self-caused” does not mean the same as “B causes B” but means the same as “each part of B is caused by earlier parts of B, B’s existence is logically entailed by its parts’ existence, and the basic laws instantiated by these parts are caused to be instantiated by earlier parts that also instantiate these laws.”(ibid 184)
Bibliography:
Davies, P.C.W. (1978) “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology and Black Hole Evaporation” in J.T. Fraser, N. Lawrence and D. Park (eds) The Study of Time III, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 74-91.
Grossman, Lisa (2012) “Death of the eternal cosmos. From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverse, every model of the universe has a beginning” in NewScientist of 14th January 2012: 2847
Palmer, Michael (2012)The Atheist’s Primer. The Lutterworth Press. (Uncorrected Proof Copy Review Purposes Only)
Quentin Smith (1993) “The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe” in William L. Craig and Quentin Smith (eds) Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
________________ (2007) “Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism” in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism Ed. Michael Martin (2007)
Ruse, Michael (2003) Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose? Harvard University Press
Russell, Bertrand (1927) “Why I Am Not a Christians”. March 6th 1927’s lecture given at National Secular Society, South London Branch.
Stenger, Victor J. (2012) “The God Hypothesis” in NewScientist of 17th March 2012: 2856
Vilenkin, Alexander (2006) Many Worlds in One. New York: Hill and Wang
As far as I can tell from my reading, the question of what caused the universe is something that we just might never be able to find out. Did the universe self-create? Are we part of a multi-verse? Is our universe the only one, but there was a previous iteration that collapsed to a singularity and then expanded again? It may be that we simply will never find out.
I once saw a physicist describe the microwave background radiation as a wall keeping us from seeing farther into the past if there is anything back there (I wish a I had a reference, it was probably from the show “how the universe works”).
“Religious atheists are not convinced by philosophical arguments or by proof of cosmic beginning.”
I’m a bit confused by this statement, what do you mean not convinced? As far as I have seen, atheists agree that the universe has a beginning. Do you object to the fact that some are considering the possibility that there is a multi-verse?
Hej Hausdorff. Thanks for your input. If you read, you would notice a qualifier religious atheists not all atheists.
Remember multiverses or not, according to Velinken, all models with expanding space-time must have a beginning. Thus those atheists that hold eternal universes hold their position by blind faith contrary to contemporary cosmology.
The universe cannot create itself because for it to do so, it has to exist. When we say x created y, we assume the existence of x that bring y into existence. Thinking that x create x is simply absurd, because it has to exists to bring itself to existence.
An atheists cannot give an explanation for cause of the universe(s), but theists can infer what is the best explantation, what character or properties should that cause be et cetera.
Let me know your thoughts.
-PD
Hey Prayson,
I’m still not sure I completely understand what you mean when you say “religious atheist”. Reading through your article again, it seems that you mean that to be people who say “there absolutely has to be some kind of multiverse”, or perhaps a slightly weaker statement “everything we know points to a multiverse”. Is that roughly what you mean by that term? In either case, the statement seems too strong to me, as I think the most common answer I hear from people who study this type of thing is that we simply don’t know.
I would tend to agree that the universe creating itself is absurd. I don’t really know how that could possibly work. But there is one part that makes me think our intuition for these things just fall apart on us. We know that space and time are bound up together. The beginning of the universe was not only the beginning of all matter and energy, but it was the beginning of time as well (beginning of time? What does that even mean?) Is it even coherent to say that there was another iteration of the universe before ours? I’m not sure. If there is a multi-verse, does causality have to work the same way? Does time have to work the same way as it does for us? I think there is a lot of room for crazy stuff to happen there. Also, I think I might read too much science fiction 🙂
“Atheists cannot give an explanation for cause of the universe(s),”
I would tend to agree here. I would certainly say that I have never seen a good explanation for the cause of the universe, and if I had to guess, I don’t think we will ever have one (although I love seeing what they come up with).
“but theists can infer what is the best explantation”
not surprisingly, I disagree with this part. I’ve never seen a good explanation myself, just assertions that whatever created the universe has to match up with properties of their God. For example, I will often see them say that whatever created the universe must be immaterial, but never an explanation why.
Hej Hausdorff.
I do not mean to say that there are people who say “there absolutely has to be some kind of multiverse”. Probably there is a multiverse. What I contended is that religious atheists think multiverse does not have a beginning, which is contrary to contemporary cosmology.
Remember multiverse is usually evoke to explain the fine tuning of our universe. If you took the classes offered at Stephen Hawkins 70th’s birthday, you will discover that multiverse or bang-crunch model, all have a beginning.
Religious atheists denies this to hold their article of faith.
I think there is a good explanation. From a philosophical point of view, we can correctly infer that the cause has to be outside space-time, thus timeless sans universe or multiverse and and spaceless. We can say that the cause has to be nonphysical and immaterial.
If we have no strong allegiance to the beliefs we hold, being atheism or theism, and follow where the evidence points, then I think Judeo-God seams a rational and a best candidate for the cause of universe or multiverse.
Do I think this is a good reason for you to change from atheism to theism? No. Do I think this make belief in God rational? Yes.
Let me know your thoughts.
– PD
Sorry I took so long to respond. For some reason the email saying you responded got caught by my spam filter.
I think what you are saying makes sense. I agree that for an atheist to simply say “No, the multiverse exists and absolutely does not have a beginning” would be silly. I personally believe this is a possibility, but I also think it is possible that there is a true beginning somewhere.
I have also heard physicists say that time itself was created in the big bang, so talking about “before” the big bang doesn’t really make sense. I’ll be honest that it is a bit over my head, but it does demonstrate how confusing these types of things can get, and I generally don’t trust people who claim certain knowledge either way.
Thanks Hausdorff. I generally trust people who claim certain knowledge until I am shown otherwise. I think we are to keep thinking, keep reading both case for and against and then form our own conclusion.
“I generally trust people who claim certain knowledge until I am shown otherwise.”
I guess it sorta depends on the situation, if I have a good reason to consider them an expert I will generally give their view more credence. But I do generally want to know how they got to that conclusion. Of course a lot of time it is difficult to explain why they think what they do.
Ultimately I agree with you though, the most important thing is to look at both sides of any issue as best we can and come to our own conclusions.
Thanks for the interesting conversation 🙂