III. What There Is - "Sense and Goodness Without God"

[geo]

Should a worldview be based on empirical evidence? I don't think the answer is as cut-and-dried as Carrier wants it to be.

He stated clearly that his worldview was based on philosophy. He rambled about it for a while in the beginning of the book. Does he say something different further in?

I guess what bugs me is that Carrier's worldview is to a large extent formulated as a reaction to prevailing Christian beliefs. I remember from the days of arguing with a certain Young Earth Creationist that I began to think in the same kinds of terms. For example, I would read about some aspect of evolution and I would start to wonder how the YECer would deny such and such evidence? In other words, I became so wrapped up in my continuing arguments with the YECer that I forgot to enjoy science for its own sake, as a pursuit of knowledge. It's pretty clear that a large group of our population will always need God. Instead of discussing this psychological need, Carrier continues to argue from a rational, logical angle with respect to beliefs that are emotional-based.

But anyway Carrier does suggest in the opening paragraphs that everyone's worldview should be based on the evidence. Here's what he says:

Many people call their philosophy a “Religion.” But that does not excuse them from their responsibility as philosophers. You either have a coherent, sensible, complete philosophy that is well-supported by all the evidence that humans have yet mustered, or you do not. Yet most people cannot even tell you which of those two camps their religion, their philosophy, is in. Hardly anyone has spent a single serious moment exploring their philosophy of life. Far fewer have made any significant effort to get it right.

I would suggest that only a very small percentage of the population has taken the time to develop a coherent worldview/philosophy. Carrier makes a good point here, but to him the only coherent worldview is one that is like his. I would disagree. There are emotional/spiritual/poetic dimensions of life that don't rely on evidence. Much of the annoyance comes from Carrier's obvious agenda to be right and religion wrong. It gets old for me. But for the most part I'm really enjoying Carrier's book as an overview of philosophy and some obviously speculative areas of science. That aspect at least is very interesting.

[Interbane]

Infinite time making evolution inevitable?
That is an ad hoc assumption to assist an anything can happen scenario.

You get points for trying ant. It's not an ad hoc assumption because evolution has already lead to consciousness. We know this happened.

The truth of infinite time has not been established scientifically.
Is this where the naturalist gets to retreat into metaphysics to win an argument?

I don't get you. No, an infinite window of time for life to evolve is impossible. It has nothing to do with the eternalist version of time. I was playing along with your hypothetical scenario, using intellectual humility in trying to figure out what you wanted. Notice my first answer was that the rise of consciousness is not inevitable, because the evolutionary timeframe is limited.

What specific algorithmic model predicts organisms would develop the same way if the clock was set to zero again?

The evolutionary algorithm would be the same. The path could have been different.

Try understanding first, replying second.

the theory of evolution explains how life evolved on earth. But is it a law?
Science seeks to uncover physical laws of nature. Does it not?
I say evolution is NOT a law of nature, like, say, gravity.

You're right. It may be a fact, but it's not a law.

His is a wager that science is the only source of true knowledge and that it will provide answers to all future questions.

He lists a number of methods that are the source of knowledge, and logic is at the top.

Hawking and Krauss at least recognise that there is a real problem to solve. How do you naturalistically get something from nothing?
Carrier thinks that by shoveling the problem back via the multiverse to a first moment of random chaos he doesn't have to explain naturalistically how this random chaos and it's properties and constituents naturalistically emerged from nothing.

Did Carrier actually say he believes the universe had a finite beginning, where something came from nothing? I'd like to see this, because he had me under the impression he believe in an eternalist version of time.

Not that it make the worldview untenable. For Hawking and Krauss, do they believe in an eternalist universe because they'd rather avoid the problem of showing how something came from nothing?

Again, I'm okay with both an eternalist and finite version. I don't know how you'd naturalistically get something from nothing. I wouldn't pretend to know. I also wouldn't pretend to know if there truly are infinite universes stretching across time eternally. I like the elegance of CIT, and I'd like to see progress in that area. I'd say that's my favorite. I also think it explains the apparent fine-tuning than Robert's appeal to necessity.

But if this is a process where time and space come into existence, and is measurable scientifically by expansion and every scientific indicator of times arrow then it is simply denial of evidence to pretend no problem exists.

If the universe truly did come from nothing, we wouldn't be able to understand it nor gain evidence of how it happened, even if we could track the evidence back to the picosecond it happened. For the time being, you could accept it as a simplistic brute fact. It's a brute fact with less ad hoc assumptions than the idea a supreme intelligence magicked something from nothing. I have ten thousand questions, all of which would lead to absurd ad hoc assumptions. If something coming from nothing is ridiculous, the idea of a god is moreso, if for no other reason than it doesn't solve the original problem.

[Flann 5]

Did Carrier actually say he believes the universe had a finite beginning, where something came from nothing? I'd like to see this, because he had me under the impression he believe in an eternalist version of time.

Carrier uses eternalism, in my opinion, to evade the something from nothing problem. Krauss and Hawking don't because they use the standard model. Carrier thinks the multiverse solves the singularity problem, and eternalism does away with the something from nothing problem. He shovels the problem back, but nothing has really changed in terms of something from nothing still being a problem. He just seems to think it has,or prefers to. Take your pick.

[Flann 5]

I guess what bugs me is that Carrier's worldview is to a large extent formulated as a reaction to prevailing Christian beliefs.

Did Carrier actually say he believes the universe had a finite beginning, where something came from nothing? I'd like to see this, because he had me under the impression he believe in an eternalist version of time.

Carrier uses eternalism, in my opinion, to evade the something from nothing problem. Krauss and Hawking don't because they use the standard model. Carrier thinks the multiverse solves the singularity problem, and eternalism does away with the something from nothing problem. He shovels the problem back, but nothing has really changed in terms of something from nothing still being a problem. He just seems to think it has,or prefers to. Take your pick.
I agree with what you say Geo, about the reactionary aspect of his book.Unfortunately, it doesn't incline me to let him off the hook when I think he gets sloppy in his attempts to downgrade theism, and upgrade his theories.
I'll probably move on to his determinism soon but I doubt this will change things much. I don't especially want to ruin others reading of the book.
It is what it is,and that prompts reactions it's likely to get too.

[Interbane]

If you're looking for an open issue at the ultimate end of a worldview, there will always be at least one. It's not as if this is a mark against the worldview. Consider the idea that a god created the universe. There are more issues than the idea of something coming from nothing.

In a single big bang universe, you have to accept the brute fact that something came from nothing. Many people accept this. The "problem" of something coming from nothing doesn't mean the worldview isn't truthful. It just means there's an unanswered question.

In an eternal universe, the "problem" is providing evidence for other hypothetical universes. The problem isn't that something came from nothing, because the universe is eternal. Again, this problem doesn't mean the worldview isn't truthful.

In both cases, the position is understood to be agnostic. We don't know, but we accept the brute fact so that we have a framework within which to explore further hypotheses.

Here is an excerpt from an article in New Scientist:

"There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," [Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] says. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally. This, of course, raises the question of what came before the big bang, and how long it lasted. Unfortunately at this point basic ideas begin to fail us; the concept "before" becomes meaningless. In the words of Stephen Hawking, it's like asking what is north of the north pole.

Even so, there is an even more mind-blowing consequence of the idea that something can come from nothing: perhaps nothingness itself cannot exist.

Here's why. Quantum uncertainty allows a trade-off between time and energy, so something that lasts a long time must have little energy. To explain how our universe has lasted for the billions of years that it has taken galaxies to form, solar systems to coalesce and life to evolve into bipeds who ask how something came from nothing, its total energy must be extraordinarily low.

That fits with the generally accepted view of the universe's early moments, which sees space-time undergoing a brief burst of expansion immediately after the big bang. This heady period, known as inflation, flooded the universe with energy. But according to Einstein's general theory of relativity, more space-time also means more gravity. Gravity's attractive pull represents negative energy that can cancel out inflation's positive energy - essentially constructing a cosmos for nothing.

"I like to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch," says Alan Guth, a cosmologist at MIT who came up with the inflation theory 30 years ago.

Source: New Scientist, July 23, 2011

[Robert Tulip]

evolution is NOT a law of nature, like, say, gravity.

You're right. It may be a fact, but it's not a law.

Evolution is a law of nature. Causality proceeds on the basis of cumulative adaptation. Everything that happens builds upon what is already happening. If something happens that is more adaptive (ie more stable, durable and fecund) then it will spread. That is what evolution means.

The simple causal logic of evolution has universal application, making evolution a law of nature.

[Flann 5]

Consider the idea that a god created the universe. There are more issues than the idea of something coming from nothing.

Here is an excerpt from an article in New Scientist:

"There is no barrier between nothing and a rich universe full of matter," [Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] says. Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.

Even so, there is an even more mind-blowing consequence of the idea that something can come from nothing: perhaps nothingness itself cannot exist.

Here's why. Quantum uncertainty allows a trade-off between time and energy, so something that lasts a long time must have little energy. To explain how our universe has lasted for the billions of years that it has taken galaxies to form, solar systems to coalesce and life to evolve into bipeds who ask how something came from nothing, its total energy must be extraordinarily low.

That fits with the generally accepted view of the universe's early moments, which sees space-time undergoing a brief burst of expansion immediately after the big bang. This heady period, known as inflation, flooded the universe with energy.

Thanks Interbane. There are lots of different ideas in the New Scientist article. I don't want to weary readers with this whole subject. Geo, has had enough I think.
On one idea here,universes could be popping out of nothing all over the place. In another the idea that nothingness cannot exist.Finally the last one in the whole article in your post is hardly a universe from nothing. Krauss and Hawking have attempted to make a case for a universe from nothing. These seem to me to be flawed but I'll let the scientists who disagree with them point out why.
Much of it seems more like voodoo or alchemy than scientific thinking.
I don't see why there are more issues with God creating the universe than nothing creating it. There are questions about his eternal self existence which are not explicable in terms of all we know. A lot of Carrier's arguments against God are a bit puerile I think. His attributes are all ad hoc add ons for instance.
He wants to follow his logic to a simple chaos point,so there he gets his creator.
We infer from what is created, one omnipotent,intelligent being.We can infer things from our existence,consciousness,purposefulness,moral nature, language communication skills,artistic expression in music,art,literature etc. The emotional aspects of love and relationships,and meaning and purpose behind reality.Nature is a mixed bag with beauty and natural disasters in it,for example.It is stunning though,on a micro and macro level, and rationally intelligible and mathematically describable.
The Christian revelation explains this contradiction in nature as a result of human rebellion and the fall of man and creation itself.
How nothing could be a better explanation for all this, defies logic for me.

[geo]

Thanks Interbane. There are lots of different ideas in the New Scientist article. I don't want to weary readers with this whole subject. Geo, has had enough I think.

It seems silly to me when each side tries to use uncertainty to score ideological points for their team. Carrier may be doing this to some extent. Believers are clearly more motivated to find gaps in our knowledge though. We should all strive to be open to ideas such as the universe from nothing. Personally I have no problem with the idea that nothingness may not be able to exist in our universe. So something from nothing may be possible or even likely.

Although I think it's very likely that we don't know enough about the universe to be able to ask intelligent questions about it. For all we know the answer to life, the universe, and everything really is 42.



Carrier is right that our brains are rigged to believe that everything has a beginning. Most cultures have creation myths that reveal this human bias and it's intuitive to apply this to all things.

But we also know that our intuition is no help at all when it comes to understanding the universe. Science is the only tool we have, and in that respect at least, Carrier is probably right about many of these things. I just can't muster the energy to argue about whether the universe started from nothing or something. We simply don't know the answers to these big questions.

[Flann 5]

No problem Geo,
I'd just say, many Christians don't see a necessary dichotomy between Science and God. Agent and mechanism,as against nature alone seems to be the issue.Worldviews as you know.

[Interbane]

Evolution is a law of nature.

The theory of evolution is not a law. But evolution as an algorithm fits the definition.

How nothing could be a better explanation for all this, defies logic for me.

I think it's incredulity on your part rather than a defiance of logic. Logic is a set of rules that apply between ideas.