Submitted by Claire de Lune on
There is a certain desperation apparent in the attempts of various authors to eliminate God from an account of the origins of the universe. For, at bottom, what motivates such attempts is the desire to overcome the very incompleteness of the scientific project itself - I call it anxiety over contingency.
This anxiety is perhaps nowhere better exemplified than in the recent work of Lawrence Krauss, who is attempting to do for cosmology what Darwin did for biology: remove the need for God as an explanatory cause. The muddle that Krauss' most recent work illustrates will help bring us to a fuller account of the need to recover the significance of intelligence and reason in relation to reality.
Science as hypothetical and existentially incomplete: The case of the Higgs boson
First, however, let me say something about the nature and limitations of the process of scientific discovery by means of the event that led to the discovery of the Higgs boson. Peter Higgs first postulated the existence of the Higgs boson in 1965. That postulate formed part of what has become known as the standard model - a physical theory which sought to unite in a single account the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions between sub-atomic particles. These are three of the four basic forces in nature, the other being gravitation.
This model operates on the basis of identifying underlying symmetries in the known data on these particles and their interactions. In this case, the different particles and fields become related through processes of "symmetry breaking." Prior to this process the various forces are unified and indistinguishable; after this symmetry breaking, they become distinct but related through symmetry operations. The various particles and forces are then related through these symmetry operations. These operations reveal the deep patterning or intelligibility of the fundamental sub-atomic particles.
Such theories are of interest, not just when they render existing data intelligible, but when they lead to predictions of new phenomena not currently identified. The standard model made three such predictions, the W and Z bosons, which were discovered in 1981, and lastly the Higgs boson. One of the reasons it took so long to discover this predicted particle is it mass. The model predicted a mass equivalent to about two hundred protons. To produce a particle of such mass required enormous amounts of energy. Perhaps the main reason for building the Large Hadron Collider at the CERN facility in Switzerland was to test the standard model and prove or disprove the existence of the Higgs boson.
In the end, the discovery demonstrated that the deep patterning identified by the standard model was present and its prediction of the Higgs boson has proved correct. In fact, the match between theory and experiment is stunning, as one physicist blogger, Adam Falkowski who was working at the CERN at the time, notes:
"one cannot help noticing that the data are indecently consistent with the simplest Higgs boson of the Standard Model. Overall, adding the [latest] data improved the consistency, eradicating some of the hints of non-standard behavior we had last year. It's been often stressed that the Higgs boson is the special one, a particle different from all the others, a type of matter never observed before. Yet it appears in front of us exactly as described in detail over the last 40 years. This is a great triumph of particle theory."
The universe did not disappoint, but once again demonstrated its deep intelligibility, that the pure intelligibility that arises from complex mathematical theories resonates with what exists in reality.
Of course, we could ask ourselves, what would happen if the scientists had not found the Higgs boson, and the standard model was not verified? Certainly the response would not have been, "Well, why should we expect the universe to fit our mathematical models?" Rather it would have been something like, "We'll go back to the drawing board and develop new models and then test them." The scientific drive to understand presumes rather than proves that the material world is intelligible. The continued success of science is a testament to the fact that this presumption is well founded.
The other thing this discovery illustrates is the ever present gap between theory and verification. The standard model was enormously successful in its account of the basic particles and the forces through which they interact. It was mathematically satisfying and elegantly based on notions of physical symmetry. Yet no one would ever have suggested that it must be correct regardless of any process of empirical verification. Such a process of verification lies at the heart of the scientific method. Theories are not self-verifying but always remain hypothetical constructs, subject to the next round of possible verification or falsification from the data.
This leads to a significant tension in the whole scientific project. Its drive is to seek intelligibility or patterns in the empirical data, to express these patterns in theoretical constructs, yet in the end it must deal with a brute fact of existence, which either verifies or falsifies these proposed patterns.
That reality is intelligible is the presupposition of all scientific endeavours: that the intelligibility science proposes is always subject to empirical verification means that science never actually explains existence itself but must submit itself to a reality check against the empirical data. This existential gap between scientific hypotheses and empirical verified judgment points to, in philosophical terms, the contingency of existence. There is no automatic leap from hypothesis to reality that can bypass a "reality check."
Attempting to overcome the "anxiety of contingency"
It is not difficult to identify a level of intellectual anxiety over this feature of contingency, especially where there may be a suggestion that God is required to overcome the existential gap between hypothesis and verification.
Various claims have been made that somehow science can come up with a theory which is so good that it must be true - a "theory of everything" in which all the loose ends are tied up, no free variables remain. The two main contenders for this are theories of the multiverse and theories of quantum gravitation. While they are not unrelated, they do have distinctive features.
Theories of the "multiverse" arose, at least in part, in response to the work of some scientists on what is called the anthropic cosmological principle. These scientists point out the high degree of fine-tuning present in the universe, making it a suitable place for the emergence of life. They note, for example, the fine balance between the expansive and contractive forces in the Big Bang which ensure that the universe either did not fly apart too quickly, or contract too quickly to allow life to emerge, and so on. This is an observation of the contingency of certain facts about our universe which seem to have no deeper intelligibility, but make our universe life-producing.
One response to this contingency is to posit the existence of other "universes" where the physical laws are very different from our own, but which would not be life-producing. Then, as Lawrence Krauss states in his book A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing, physics becomes an "environmental science," the science of our particular cosmic environment. The multiverse thus displaces any need for a creator God, since in some sense the claim is made that it is self-explanatory:
"The possibility that our universe is one of a large, even possibly infinite set of distinct and causally separated universes, in each of which any number of fundamental aspects of physical reality may be different opens up a vast new possibility for understanding our existence."
The multiverse contains all possible worlds within itself:
"The question of what determined the laws of nature that allowed our universe to form and evolve now becomes less significant. If the laws of nature are themselves stochastic and random, then there is no prescribed 'cause' for our universe."
However, the problem is, as Krauss notes on several occasions, the various universes that constitute the multiverse are "causally disconnected," which means their existence can never be empirically verified. So in order to overcome anxiety about contingency, Krauss and others who propose the multiverse are willing to ditch a fundamental aspect of scientific method, the demand for empirical verification.
Of course, one might suggest that the notion of "causal disconnection" should be taken more loosely and the theory of a multiverse could be empirically verified. In which case, we are back to the issue of contingency which the multiverse sought to overcome.
A similar set of observations could be made about claims of a possible future "theory of everything," in which all physical constants are determined uniquely and so there can be only one possible universe (or multiverse), uniquely determined by "one big equation." Such a theory would unite the four forces of nature in one account of quantum gravity. However, we run into the same problem, that either such a theory needs to be empirically verified, which again gives rise to contingency; or it seeks to go beyond a fundamental aspect of scientific method which requires empirical verification.
In metaphysical terms, both the theory of a multiverse and the "theory of everything" are seeking to move beyond contingency to necessity, to formulate what would in traditional terms be called "necessary" being. This approach is an attempt to bypass the traditional response which would identify such a necessary being with God. But the simple fact is that no mathematical formula creates anything. In itself, it is the creation of the mind that conceives it. It may help explain what exists, but it does not create the thing it explains.
The anxiety over contingency is nonetheless a valid anxiety because without some necessary being - such as God - the drive towards the intelligibility of the universe, which is the foundational drive of science, hits a brick wall with existence itself, which remains radically unintelligible, without explanation, unless it is related in some way to necessary being.
This, of course, is not a proof that such a being exists, but it does indicate why the notion of a divine being arises in relation to the problem of contingency; it also indicates the vacuous nature of the question, "Who made God?" Necessary being is self-explanatory; it needs no further explanation, no "maker" to explain it. It also shows why God's existence or non-existence can never be a scientific question. Scientific method is predicated on the need for empirical verification, which means it can only deal with contingent being, not necessary being. We can never get to God, or get rid of God, as the conclusion of a scientific argument.
Lawrence Krauss' metaphysical muddle
We can observe further confusion in the approach of Krauss when he presses his argument that the universe is self-explanatory. As the title suggest, in his book A Universe from Nothing he claims that science is well on the way to explaining how the universe emerges from "nothing," thus eliminating any need for a creator God.
As Krauss notes, much hangs on what we mean by "nothing." As he repeats often enough to be a mantra, nothing means "empty space". Indeed, "'Nothing' is every bit as physical as 'something', especially if it is to be defined as the 'absence of something.'" He explains, "By nothing I do not mean nothing, but rather nothing - in this case, the nothingness we normally call empty space."
What comes through time and time again is that real things are things "in" space and time. But one may ask about the reality of space itself. Is space "real" and does it constitute "something" rather than "nothing"? If space is indeed "something" then Krauss' argument that something comes from nothing ("empty space") is itself empty. Indeed even he admits "I assume space exists" so it is clearly not nothing.
Much of Krauss' energy is expended telling us that "nothing" - in his sense of empty space - "is not nothing" at all, but a seething undercurrent of virtual particles which can "pop" into real existence through their interaction with powerful fields. Scientifically this may well be correct, but it clearly does not address the question of whether something can come from nothing, but tells us how some things can come from something else (that is, from empty space, which is not really empty at all).
We can witness here a basic confusion operating in Krauss' conception of "nothing." Nothing is not defined as the absence of existence or being, but as the emptiness of space and time. But at the same time, space "exists." The ontological status of space is thus confused for Krauss. One the one hand existence (being "something") occurs within space; on the other hand, space exists. Because space is actually never empty, even "nothing is something" as he states as the title of a chapter of his book. Krauss is in a metaphysical muddle, but seems completely unaware of the fact.
Neither do those who have enthusiastically endorsed his work, like Sam Harris (who declares it a "brilliant and disarming book") or A.C. Grayling (who claims it is a "triumph of science over metaphysics, reason and enquiry over obfuscation and myth, made plain for all to see"). In an appendix to the book, Richard Dawkins compares it with Darwin's Origin of Species, doing for cosmology what Darwin's work did for biology in eliminating the need for God. If nothing else, this demonstrates that it is apparently not just religious thinkers who can suspend the power of critical thought when it suits them.
Science and the need for "intellectual conversion"
In terms theologian Bernard Lonergan develops in his major work Insight, Krauss is caught in a notion of reality as "already-out-there-now," a reality conditioned by space and time. Lonergan refers to this conception of reality as based on an "animal" knowing, on extroverted biologically dominated consciousness. He distinguishes it from a fully human knowing based on intelligence and reason, arguing that many philosophical difficulties arise because of a failure to distinguish between these two forms of knowing.
This distinction can help us identify why Krauss is confused about the ontological status of space. Our "animal" knowing identifies "reality" as an "already-out-there-now" of things, particles, fields and so on, "in" space and time. Our genuine fully human knowing, on the other hand, knows that space exists because it is intelligent and reasonable to affirm its reality.
As a scientist, Krauss is obviously fully committed to the use of intelligence and reason. Indeed, the whole of scientific method is predicated on the use of intelligence and reason. Intelligence is the creative ecstatic origin of all scientific hypotheses. In the moment of insight - when the "light goes on," or "the penny drops," when we move from struggling to grasp anything at all to that moment of illumination when everything becomes clear - that moment is the beginning of every scientific and mathematical discovery.
Nonetheless, it is only a first step. While we well remember the scientific and mathematical successes, the insights which were genuine breakthroughs, we tend to forget the less successful ones, the failures. Something more is needed: in science it is verification and in mathematics it is rigorous proof. Both of these involve a movement from insight to judgment; from hypothesis to checking that the hypothesis works or is correct.
This process of reasoning leading to judgment is very different from the process of insight, less exciting, more imperious, demanding and exacting. Alternate explanations need to be eliminated; hidden assumptions need to be uncovered and verified if needed; more data may need to be found; possible predictions or consequences need to be investigated and so on.
This is a process of reasoning; it is more than just logic and much more than just a mechanical process, because it involves an element of personal responsibility. Our insights are spontaneous and serendipitous, they cannot be forced or produced at will; judgments involve us as persons, for we may judge too hastily and appear foolish, or too slowly and appear pedestrian.
So Krauss is very familiar with the operations of intelligence and reason. However, he has a notion of reality, not as uncovered by the operations of intelligence and reason, but by mere looking - the already-out-there-now "real" of animal extroversion. To break out of this metaphysical muddle, Krauss needs to shift his criteria of reality from "taking a look" to "intelligently grasped and reasonably affirmed."
This is the underlying criteria which grounds the scientific method, with hypothesis intelligently grasped and reasonably affirmed in empirical verification. It is not an alien intrusion to the scientific project, but it is nonetheless a startling and unsettling shift to accomplish. Indeed, it is so startling that if you do not think it is startling, you haven't made it. This shift is the beginning of what Lonergan calls "intellectual conversion."
Welcome to a fuller reality
It goes without saying that you cannot prove the existence of God to a materialist without first converting the materialist away from materialism. In the present context, if we think of the real as an "already-out-there-now" real of extroverted consciousness, then God is not real. God becomes just a figment of the imagination, a fairy at the bottom of the garden, an invisible friend. However, if the real is constituted by intelligent grasp and reasonable affirmation, then reality suddenly becomes much richer, and the God-question takes on a different hue.
But it is not just the God-question that we can now begin to address more coherently. There are a whole range of other realities whose reality we can now affirm: interest rates, mortgages, contracts, vows, national constitutions, penal codes and so on. Where do interest rates "exist"? Not in banks, or financial institutions. Are they real when we cannot touch them or see them? We all spend so much time worrying about them - are we worrying about nothing? In fact, I'm sure we all worry much more about interest rates than about the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson! Similarly, a contract is not just the piece of paper, but the meaning the paper embodies; likewise a national constitution or a penal code.
Once we break the stranglehold on our thinking by our animal extroversion, we can affirm the reality of our whole world of human meanings and values, of institutions, nations, finance and law, of human relationships and so on, without the necessity of seeing them as "just" something else lower down the chain of being yet to be determined.
Affirming the real as intelligible and reasonable allows us to resist the overpowering reductionism of many scientific claims. While not intrinsic to science per se, scientific explanations are often driven by the claims that a particular phenomenon is "nothing but" a set of underlying states. The approach is a by-product of thinking that reality is already-out-there-now, so the closer I look, the more intense my gaze, the more and more detail and the smaller things I see. Indeed, even when the things we are seeking are so small we shall never actually "see" them in any meaningful sense, we still maintain this myth of knowing. Within this frame of reference, every science is thought to be just a set of footnotes to the most basic science of all - probably particle physics, which gives us the ultimate "building blocks" of reality.
In fact, the reductionist paradigm fails even at the sub-atomic level. We are often told that a nucleus of an atom is comprised of protons and neutrons. This basic model of the atom was developed in the early-twentieth century when protons and neutrons were thought to be basic building blocks of matter.
But there is something wrong even with this account. A bare neutron has a half-life of about eleven and a half minutes. Over time it decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino. However, once inside the nucleus of an atom, this basic property of the neutron ceases to function. Its integration into the higher order intelligibility of the atomic nucleus changes its properties. The higher order reality has modified the lower order constituent. Indeed if this did not happen there would be no stable atomic nuclei, no stable chemical substances, and we would not exist.
***
One consequence of what Lonergan calls "intellectual conversion" is, as I have tried to demonstrate, a breaking of the hold on our imaginations of the aggressive scientific reductionism that dominates much of the discussion around science and religion. Such a reductionism is a metaphysical stance, one not "proven" by science, and in fact one which runs counter to a scientific commitment to intelligence (hypothesis formation) and reason (verification).
Once we move from a conception of reality as already-out-there-now, to one where reality is uncovered through intelligent grasp and reasonable affirmation, reductionism loses its force. Further, we are able to affirm the reality of our human world of meanings and values without seeing them as just "nothing more than" some underlying more "real" reality.