Cosmologist Laurence M. Krauss, whose new book A Universe From Nothing comes out this month, tells Sam Harris the answer is no:
The old idea that nothing might involve empty space, devoid of mass or energy, or anything material, for example, has now been replaced by a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly. I then go on to explain how other versions of “nothing”—beyond merely empty space—including the absence of space itself, and even the absence of physical laws, can morph into “something.” Indeed, in modern parlance, “nothing” is most often unstable. Not only can something arise from nothing, but most often the laws of physics require that to occur.
Now, having said this, my point in the book is not to suggest that modern science is incompatible with at least the Deistic notion that perhaps there is some purpose to the Universe (even though no such purpose is manifest on the basis of any of our current knowledge, and moreover there is no logical connection between any possible “creator” and the personal God of the world’s major religions, who cares about humanity’s destiny). Rather, what I find remarkable is the fact that the discoveries of modern particle physics and cosmology over the past half century allow not only a possibility that the Universe arose from nothing, but in fact make this possibility increasingly plausible. Everything we have measured about the universe is not only consistent with a universe that came from nothing (and didn’t have to turn out this way!), but in fact, all the new evidence makes this possibility ever more likely.
What's remarkable is that Krauss apparently does not understand that everything he says is exactly what one would expect scientists to find if the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo were true. That doctrine teaches – and has taught at least since the second century – that God created the universe out of nothing. As expressed in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215:
We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, ... creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing (de nihilo condidit) both spiritual and corporeal creatures.
In other words, the universe is not some sort of physical offshoot of God (creatio ex deo), as many ancient myths posited. Nor did God create the universe from pre-existing material (creatio ex materia), the way a sculptor turns a stone into a work of art. If Christians believed either of those things, then Krauss's arguments might give us pause. But we don't. We believe God created the entire universe - including all of the laws of physics that Krauss is discussing - from nothing. It therefore should not surprise us to find that this same universe shows signs of having been created out of nothing.
Not that this doctrine makes any kind of intuitive sense. In our experience, nothing comes from nothing, and for that reason most Greek and Roman philosophers rejected it (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit) - a fact that, incidentally, caused medieval theologians a great deal of distress.
Anyhow, it's nice to see science validating what Christians have said all along. It's just a pity – and something of an embarrassment – that Krauss apparently knows so little about theology. To paraphrase Dorothy Sayers, it's one thing to reject Christianity because you do not find its doctrines believable; quite another to reject it when you haven't a clue what it is you are rejecting. But, then again, maybe Krauss's ignorance is not so surprising given the fact that most scientists, like most people, have no more than a sixth grade understanding of theology.
Comments