Here is the video from my debate with William Lane Craig at the 2014 Greer-Heard Forum. Enough talking from me, now folks can enjoy for themselves. First is the main debate and Q&A:
"God & Cosmology" - 2014 Greer-Heard Forum
It took a while for the Saturday talks by Maudlin, Collins, Rosenberg, and Sinclair to appear on line, but I’ve posted them here.
Aaron,
I’d be very curious to hear what Sean and others think of your comment but I personally think you have summed up a big part of the God/no-God question very well. It seems to me that we do have to end the infinite regress somewhere. While the 2 options you give obviously don’t cover the entire gamut of options, I still get your point. Either the quest can end with a “necessary” explanation that is supernatural or the quest can end with a “necessary” explanation that is not supernatural. That might do better at being comprehensive in choices.
I personally think that the non-supernatural choice has benefits over the other one. The main one being that we all agree that there are non-supernatural entities in the world (humans being one example). But whether or not there are supernatural entities is not something that is agreed upon – in fact it is hotly contested, and there does not seem to be empirical data supporting it. So positing something supernatural adds something extra to what we all agree exists, while the other option does not. Also, supernatural explanations seem to be a bit more complicated a solution than the natural solution. While this actually is a contested claim it seems to make sense to me. At least the traditional monotheistic supernatural explanation clearly is more complicated because that entity knows absolutely everything about anything that exists in reality. To me this seems to be a most complicated entity. Obviously Sean gave some other great points in the debate about why a non-supernatural explanation has benefits over the other option.
I think Dr. Carroll did a good job of making it clear that there is nothing wrong with believing in the supernatural, but as far as science and cosmology is concerned, it is not a logical or reasonable answer given the other choices AND THE EVIDENCE. There’s not enough evidence to support theism, but if there was, then we would change our minds and say that ‘theism is the way the universe works’. Changing your mind isn’t a bad thing, unless you’re an organization which relies on individuals willingly donating money…
@Aaron
Except Craig equivocates on nothing if he is claiming BGV provides an absolute nothing to begin from (as it seemed he did), since that’s obviously not what BGV is saying. When a cosmologist speaks of nothing, it’s not an absolute nothing, as Krauss’s and Hawking’s recent books on origin of universe from “nothing” have shown. And here’s Vilenkin from his Many Worlds book,
Craig’s appeal to BGV as supporting a beginning from absolute nothing is basically a quote mine.
Pingback: Carroll vs Craig « Why Evolution Is True
Sean,
Having watched it in full, I thought Craig came off worse than first viewing it live. His first rebuttal seemed so disconnected from your opening, he didn’t engage your positions. Obviously, he is not an expert and is at a disadvantage on the topic, but then he shouldn’t be taking fringe views and presenting them as though they’ve been professionally vetted as authoritative. It’s fair to say he does know more about the science than most lay people, but it’s also clearly very incomplete knowledge and with misconceptions.
If Craig were a grad student and his debate presentation were for an assignment on displaying one’s understanding of current cosmology, what grade would you give him?
LUCY: “Craig’s appeal to BGV as supporting a beginning from absolute nothing is basically a quote mine.”
No, you’re mistaken about that. Craig reviewed Vilenkin’s book and specifically addresses the section you quoted: see http://www.reasonablefaith.org/vilenkins-cosmic-vision-a-review-essay-of-many-worlds-in-one
CRAIG: “Vilenkin himself seems to realize that he has not really described the tunneling of the universe from literally nothing, for he allows, “And yet, the state of ‘nothing’ cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus ‘nothing’ should be subjected to these laws” (p. 181). It follows that the universe described by those laws is not nothing. Unfortunately, Vilenkin draws the mistaken inference that “The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe” (p. 181). Even if one takes a Platonistic view of the laws of nature, they are at most either mathematical objects or propositions, abstract entities that have no effect on anything. (Intriguingly, Vilenkin entertains a conceptualist view according to which the laws exist in a mind which predates the universe [p. 205], the closest Vilenkin comes to theism). If these laws are truly descriptive, then obviously it cannot be true that “there was no universe.” Of course, the laws could have existed and been false, in which case they are non-descriptive; but then Vilenkin’s theory will be false.”
With a step back, this whole issue of naturalism vs. god is akin to evolution vs. intelligent design. By that I mean it seems like the theists have no comprehensive cosmological explanation at all, just naysaying particulat points of various scientific explanations. In other words they stand aloof poking holes in various cosmological models by quoting scientific literature which criticizes that particular model. In the end, the theists simply declare that there must be a transcendent cause (god) which created the universe out of nothing, but can’t explain how that happened.
Additionally, it seemed awkward to watch a Christian apologist attempt to lecture a working theoretical physicist about physics. It is obvious Dr. Craig does not understand the BGV theorem but only uses it as a tool to attempt to poke holes in cosmological models with which he disagrwws.
What I find super weird is the intuition that a universe that’s a sequence with a beginning raises the ‘why this beginning and not a different beginning or no beginning’ question in a way that’s more bothersome than how a universe that’s a sequence with no beginning raises the ‘why this sequence and not a different sequence or no sequence’ question. It’s so strange that theists find the physical existence of a well defined sequence that’s infinitely long in both directions less ‘contingent’ (if correct) than the physical existence a sequence that has a first element.
@Augustine1938
That Craig believes Vilenkin is mistaken is what makes it a quotemine. To be clear, BGV never says that there was a beginning from nothing, let alone absolute nothing. And in the book, Vilenkin is only describing a nothing if there was one. He doesn’t say there definitely was. From BGV,
Note how it says new physics is needed to describe the conditions. Craig is basically making an absolute-nothing (with god) of the gaps argument. It’s funny how Craig thinks he can know better than Vilenkin the implications of his paper. It’s like how during the debate he tried to tell Sean that he is wrong about his own paper. What do we need cosmologists or science for if Craig already knows all the answers?
Dr. Carroll,
I am new to your work, but not new to watching William Lane Craig debates. I have seen several (the greatest hits – Hitchens, Dr. Krauss, Sam Harris) but I thoroughly enjoyed your debate with him the most. Your blend of wit with sound scientific explanations really captured my attention (and I would imagine the attention of quite a few others as long as it lives on YouTube).
This is really the first time that I really saw Dr. Craig hit by the buzzsaw of a fantastic science communicator with the cosmological knowledge to poke visible holes in his arguments in a way that actually makes sense to a lay person like myself (all due respect to Dr. Krauss, but I feel that you were far more clear in your scientific repudiations of Dr. Craig’s assertions than him).
My favorite line (I am a programmer – so I am a little biased):
“That’s what computer scientists call a bug, not a feature.”
Lucy,
So we are to believe that Craig’s intent is to distort Vilenkin’s book by ignoring crucial parts of it (and hoping no one notices), yet he interacts with the entire book in an extensive review that he posts on his public website, engages in an extensive email exchange with Vilenkin to confirm his understanding of his work (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem) and also posts that on his public website, and schedules multiple public debates with cosmologists familiar with Vilenkin’s work (thus subjecting himself to rebuttal)? I don’t buy it.
LUCY: “It’s funny how Craig thinks he can know better than Vilenkin the implications of his paper.”
When science has philosophical implications it is appropriate to turn to philosophers to analyze those, not physicists, since that is outside the physicists’ wheelhouse. As John Horgan has said. “Scientists’ attempts to solve these mysteries often take the form of what I call ironic science—unconfirmable speculation more akin to philosophy or literature than genuine science” (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/oct/cover/#.UxFRMPldUfU). Metaphysics should be left to the philosophers.
I’m about an hour into the debate video. Sean Carroll just finished talking about evidence against theism, and now Craig is rebutting that this evidence isn’t cosmological in nature, and so not relevant. But Craig is missing the point — the last of Sean’s points — that theism isn’t well defined, because theism can explain any of these points of evidence if the right adjustments are made. Craig’s theism seems to be finely tuned indeed.
@aaon:
Do you really think that “the negation of all ‘things'” is a coherent definition of something (sic) you want to call metaphysical nothingness? Isn’t this just a classic example of what Wittgenstein called language going on holiday? Negation is a logical concept. Things are, well… things. Can you “negate” ALL “things”? Does this mean anything at all? I can imagine “negating” my cereal bowl by putting it in a drawer or maybe blowing it up. Can I imagine “negating” it in some absolute sense, along with everything else? “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is about as coherent a question to ask as “why is there where?” or “where is there why?” Simply giving a formal-looking restatement of a badly defined concept doesn’t make it less badly defined. Craig’s use of the term “nothing” in a “philosophical” sense may be lots of things, but philosophical isn’t one of them.
So what is more rational: to realize that explanations, at some point, come to an end–more than that, to realize that some questions don’t even make enough sense to require explanations; or to play metaphysical parlor games that claim to fill serious gaps in our knowledge of the world?
Baron Ludwig von Nichts/Lucy Harris: The existence of “objective morality,” at least to me, does not follow from philosophy or physics or mathematics but from the empirical science of ethology coupled with the principle of biological evolution through random mutation and natural selection. And whatever formal philosophers mean by “objective,” what I mean is that the element of morality in the human psyche is naturally occuring, not man-made, not the product of education, free will or concious interest. Behaviors showing empaty, compassion, altruism, respect and courtesy come about in the same way as hunger, thirst and the sexual drive—not unlike our eyes, liver and kidneys.
I’m aware of the philosophical connotations of objectivity as opposed to subjectivity—that one cannot empirically prove that a behavior typical of empathy indeed arises from a subjective feeling of empathy. (I guess philosophers won’t be satisfied even if an empathy hormone is discovered, the secretion of which correlates with both the behavior and the phenomenology attested to by the subject.) Again, what I mean by “objective morality” is not the opposite of “subjective” but the opposite of “choice morality.”
In their rearguard battle against the encroaching scientific world view, theists, and religious people in general, use morality as an argument in two inconsistent ways: 1) natural knowledge of right and wrong is uniquely human and is proof-enough both that a benevolent god exists, who has instilled it in us, and that humans transcend animals; 2) “the man’s heart makeup is bad from his youth” [Genesis 8:21, my translation] and hence we have to learn how to be good from the commandments and examples revealed to us by God in his scriptures. Both arguments crumble when animals are shown to behave morally—with morals that fit their specific survival and reproduction needs—and that these behaviors are well explained as biological adaptations.
Regarding Maudlin…….. yawn. I was reminded why I couldn’t finish reading his book, “Philosophy of Physics…” Way too much “why?”, “meaning?”, “purpose?” instead of simply “How did things get the way they are?”
That was superb, Dr Carroll. Thank you.
Just watched the debates, Sean was on top form, and while initially impressed with WLC’s attempts to engage with the hard science, he certainly has a handle on the nomenclature and can reel of phrases like Boltzmann brains at some pace but sadly I have to say I eventually shared Sean’s frustration with some of WLC’s repetitive responses, to be fair of course only a tiny minority of specialists are truly up to the debate of critiquing some of these cosmological models in depth (especially in a live debate) so some props for effort, he simply bit off more than he could chew and either through misunderstanding or diversionary tactics failed to grapple fully with Sean’s counter arguments.
My own assessment of WLC from this debate is that he’s a smart guy with the self assured slickness of a politician. His interest in science though probably sincere is always likely to remain subservient to his ideologically combative defence of his faith. If he can find a science paper to back up his ideas he will naturally pounce on it, but not with the required objectivity or understanding to truly add to the cosmological debate itself, using fire to fight fire is his modus operandi.
So he favours a universe that has a beginning? To paraphrase Bohr ‘Stop telling God what to do’!!! presumably(?) he rejects the earth being made in 7 days, and being 3000 years old etc but still needs to believe in a certain conception of the universe that fits the big bang as the biblical ‘let there be light’ moment when the very concept of time was created by the atemporal deity.
In many ways though he got some stick I preferred the debate with Hans Halverson (Still trying to get over Sean’s admission he likes or at least liked the music of ELP. Then again when I heard their ‘music’ I was also convinced there could be no God, albeit for very different reasons!) Or if not so much the debate with Hans so much as what it revealed about the man himself- he clearly has a good grasp of the philosophical implications of science, and who seemingly understands that his faith is thereby a paradox, yet he still has faith! At times he appears unsure, halting, in conflict with himself- the polar opposite of WLC. By some coincidence I had just read Kierkegaards ‘Fear and trembling’, a superb analytical exploration of the logic of faith from the perspective of faith itself.
Though I’m a confirmed atheist a famous and beautiful phrase from Fear and trembling still struck me.
‘If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?’
That I am an atheist and life is NOT despair (well mostly) is also a paradox, the flip side of the coin. We can talk about how we through our agency can give our lives meaning yet behind that is the knowledge that it will end, and that our children’s lives will eventually end, and all Shakespeare, Mozart, Duke Ellington etc will eventually be wiped out of existence be it 1000 years in a catastrophe or billions of years away in the heat death. Somehow just temporal existence itself strikes me as all the ‘meaning’ needed. The universe just is, consciousness just is an emergent property and somehow that is enough.
I made my living all my life as a physics professor and am enjoying retirement benefits also from that past activity!! I cannot possibly have anything against physics and cosmology! As everyone knows by now, cosmological “nothing” consists of quantum fields and it is not “nothing” as understood by man/woman in the street! Now, how you interpret this scientific fact, depends on your belief system. Sean made some very good scientific points and I always learn something from his talks, blogs and books. But I do not agree with everything he says. At the same time many of Craig’s arguments were ridiculous. Personally I am in favor of peaceful coexistence of science and religion. Both have limitations and both can be good for mankind if properly used. Perhaps 30 to 50% of scientists do not have any problem with religion. Some prominent ones like Physics Nobel Laureate William Phillips, British physicist Polkinghorne, NIH director Francis Collins and some others are good examples. Their belief in God and Science at the same time is very subtle and cannot be explained in a few words. Actually my suggestion (obviously biased) is that atheists should consider eastern religions also before continuing their tirades against religions.
Hi Sean,
This must be the best and most productive atheist-theist debate I’ve ever seen. It may or may not change minds but it certainly has helped to elucidate some of the issues many of us hold dear. I think this debate was very valuable and consequently I’m more than ever encouraged to study more cosmology on its own terms. Though, if I had to come up with a single objection it would be that it got too technical at certain points, but perhaps the topic required it.
All that aside, I couldn’t help but get the impression that it became more an academic debate about whether the universe had a beginning or not rather than whether God’s existence had any bearing to that or not. I don’t frankly think naturalism or theism hinges on whether the universe had a beginning or not. How much is the probability of theism really affected by whether the universe has a beginning or not? You could argue for theism either way. Cosmology really is largely immaterial to theism.
The crux of the matter is, and I think you were trying to get at that, is in the idea of _explanation_. It’s easy to come up with a thesis that is consistent with any physical state of affairs, but the issue is really: what constitutes a good explanation? That there must be limits on what constitutes a good explanation or it isn’t really an explanation at all, it’s just a mere justification of what you’ve already decided to be true.
Finally, the scientific and philosophical expertise you brought to this really did give you the edge. This is an important lesson I think people on both sides of the debate should heed.
Also, I must give some credit to Craig for being willing to engage you on your own turf and sticking to the topics at hand.
Thanks!
Thank you DEL for your response. Of course, there are many behaviors that are naturally occurring in human beings which can be justified on evolutionary grounds, such as racism, rape and genocide. Why only focus on the ones you like?
It seems to me that atheists are in some denial about the nihilistic consequences of their non-belief. In a world made of atoms and the void, there are only arbitrary, non-physical, social reasons for acting in ways that are currently considered moral. If a group of psychopaths becomes powerful enough to change human society and dominate the memetic and genetic landscape going forward, then their morality will become the new normal, and the universe simply won’t care. Appeals by people like Professor Maudlin to some scientific “objective morality” seem like rather flimsy attempts to create a new god and a new basis for “progress” where none exists. Nietzsche understood this problem a long time ago and went “mad from the revelation” trying to solve it. As far as I can tell, it remains unsolved, though most people seem to want to sweep it under the rug rather than confront it. Nihilism is still the Lovecraftian monster haunting secular civilization, which may yet prove to be its undoing. If the suicidal trajectory of postmodern civilization is any indication, secularism is but a brief bubble that will soon break before the next wave of fecund, aggressive believers.
tim maudlin seems to be good at practicing negative capability
@baron your concerns about atheism, nihilistic consequences and secularism are typical for a believer or ‘used to be believer’. Why not look at the facts. Modern secular societies, where religion has been relegated to a fringe or infrequent cultural activity, manage just fine. I know it because I live in one. On most measures I live in a healthier society than most societies regarded as ‘religious’ Less crime, less rape less murder, less inequality. Your imaginings don’t correspond with reality.
Allan, I’ve never been a believer in God, though I did once have faith in secular progressivism. My main point was that secular progressive societies are based upon “noble lies” just as much as any theocracy — indeed, one might call them “progressive theocracies.” The ideological foundations of secular societies — “Justice”, “Progress”, “Equality”, “Reason”, etc. — are just as much made-up memes as “God”, “the Millenium”, “Faith”, and “Salvation.” Since no moral order is written in the stars or in the laws of physics, every society that claims one is built upon a foundation of quicksand. Power, ultimately, is the arbiter of human affairs, and all appeals to “objective morality,” whether derived from reason or divine revelation, are just attempts to justify one’s preferred power structure.
As for your claims about reduced crime in secular societies, which society are you talking about specifically? The murder rate in the United States today is an order of magnitude higher than in 1900, though I doubt it is an order of magnitude more religious. I didn’t say that modern secular societies don’t manage OK, but I will challenge your claim that they represent some kind of apotheosis of world history.
@Baron
“My main point was that liberal, progressive, secular societies are based upon “noble lies”
And your main point is bullshit, plain & simple. Obvious to anyone with half a brain. Game over.
“The murder rate in the United States today is an order of magnitude higher than in 1900”
And in case you hadn’t noticed, the population of the U.S. is a helluva lot higher than it was in 1900 as well. Looks like you need to take a course in statistics. 🙂
@baron I’m specifically talking about the UK, but I think the general comparison between the U.S. and western Europe shows that religion is not necessary to produce a humane and peaceful society. I’m not claiming that religion is necessarily harmful (although it almost always harms education) but that societies free of religion function perfectly well. You talked about “noble lies’, I would argue that these noble lies are based on the elementary idea that suffering is bad and wellbeing (to use the Sam Harris term) is good. I’ve been asked by religious types to justify that, My response is to tell them to try the experiment of dropping a hammer on their toe.