Last Friday, a few of us drove down to New Orleans for the 2014 Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum debate between Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, and atheist physicist Sean Carroll. The debate was held at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. I am actually fairly skeptical of the effectiveness of these debates, but I consider Craig to be such a master of this particular approach to apologetic discourse that I decided to go see him.
It was a frustrating evening.
A lot was going on: there was a degree of posturing on both sides, I think. Craig was clearly trying to communicate that he has a good grasp of modern cosmology. Sean Carroll was clearly trying to communicate that Craig has no such thing. Craig was trying to show that the implications of modern cosmology affirm rather than deny certain conclusions that bolster the claims of theism. In particular, Craig argued, modern cosmology has done nothing to dispense with the idea that the universe had a beginning. Thus, appealing to the Kalam cosmological argument, if it had a beginning, it had a cause, a cause outside of the universe. Carroll, in response, swept away Craig’s entire argument by saying that the kind of thinking Craig was indulging in had merit 500 years ago, but not now, and that he was thinking about the entire issue all wrong and was therefore asking the wrong questions. He asserted that (1) cosmologists have come up with nearly 20 models for an eternal, uncaused universe even though (2) none of the models have proven to solve the problem. This was very frustrating. Even more frustrating was Carroll’s dismissal of cause-and-effect reality on the basis that, to paraphrase, the universe itself is not like things in the universe.
Many specifics of the debate were mildly irritating. Both men spoke on a level that they had to know would lose the vast majority of us in the audience. Sean Carroll showed his lack of debating experience by offering smarmy facial expressions and head nodding behind Craig as he spoke. Craig never did this when Carroll spoke. Carroll’s final abandonment of the topic at hand to lecture the Christians present about the need to abandon their outdated views (i.e., “low hanging fruit” on “the tree of life”) and join him and the other intellectual elites in the upper branches of the tree of knowledge was smarmy and, again, revealed his lack of debating experience. Carroll’s stupefyingly blind optimism in his own brand of fundamentalist scientism was too obvious to be concealed. Does the idea of an eternal universe go against common sense and all that we know about causes and effects? Sure, but the universe itself is different somehow and we’ll figure it out. Are there any good models to explain the eternal universe? No, but there are models that are trying to explain it and we’ll figure it out.
Carroll held his own against Craig, is confident and speaks clearly, and did not cower before the Christian apologist. Craig’s central assertions, however, remain unrefuted, and cosmologists will have a long way to go if they really want to convince thoughtful people that nothing produced everything out of nothing on its own.
There are a few things you don’t understand.
First, you can’t say that the evidence is still on the side of a finite-past universe because “nearly 20 models for an eternal, uncaused universe… ” exist but ” …none of the models have proven to solve the problem…” The reason is that all of the finite-past universe models ALSO don’t solve the problem! There is NO coherent model of the universe at the point 13.8 billion years ago. Both the eternal models and the finite models all have their problems. That’s why people are still working on it. Specifically, the popular finite-past models suffer from mathematical problems when one applies quantum field theory to the equations of general relativity at such a small scale. It doesn’t work. None of the models work yet. So neither side can make a claim to veracity based on having a working model.
It comes down to who can show that their model has fewer problems so far and better results. Now, who do you trust when debating cosmology? A cosmologist? Or a philosopher? Hint: Cosmology requires tons of complex mathematics. Craig can caricature the science and misquote people all he wants, but he just doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. Some examples are when he had a problem with Carroll’s double-arrowed axis on his graph: This is a comically empty complaint for anyone who has taken any kind of math class in the past few years. More importantly, it underscored how much he is unable to understand basic analytical ideas unless they are spoon fed to him by people on his own side.
Other examples include his non-response to the Boltzmann brain problem. He tried to use some mathematical jargon by saying something of the sort “one would need to find a measure on the space of parameters” to avoid universes with a Boltzmann brain problem. Carroll informed him that, yes, that’s exactly what he and his colleagues do! Craig just ignored this and claimed, in his response, that it’s still a problem.
The worst thing Craig has ever said (to demonstrate his mathematical ineptitude) is his argument against actual infinities. But since he didn’t bring it up at the debate, I won’t spend time on it. Just rest assured that, despite whatever quote he uses out of context, there is no serious mathematician who would agree with him. His argument is so simply wrong. It’s childishly wrong. It’s embarrassing. (It’s also embarrassing on the atheist side that none of his opponents have been able to call him out on it).
Finally, Carroll’s objection to the intuitive notion of cause and effect as a guide to our thinking of the possible beginning of the universe is a valid one. Any careful thought (and I’d be happy to discuss this further) reveals that cause and effect are not well defined, fundamentally existing principles, but rather emergent macroscopic tools. We would be ill advised to apply them to the beginning of the universe.
Nick,
Thanks so much for your comment and for stopping by.
As for who I trust when debating cosmology, a cosmologist or a philosopher, I can assure you that you will find my answer to be much worse than anything you could imagine: a theologian. 🙂 Of course, the late physicist and cosmologist Robert Jastrow understood the appeal of my position: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Touche.
As for putting the “we’re working on it” bandage on the absurdity of a universe essentially coming into being ex nihilo of its own accord, I can only say, “Keep at it,” though you may find when all is said and done that the old theological maxim creatio ex nihilo has more to commend it than you might think.
Explain to me how creation ex nihilo is more absurd than a necessary personal mind who created the universe. Give me reasons to think that one is more absurd than the other.
Modern apologists have, to some degree, stolen the megaphone from the physicist mouth and declared that modern cosmology points towards a finite universe. This is not the case. The cosmologist community is thoroughly diverse in their speculation about the nature of the past, and to claim that the evidence surely points to a beginning is ignorant or dishonest. Now, let’s suppose, however, that the universe DID have a beginning. Further, let’s suppose that there really WAS a cause.
Then what?
theist: “Then the cause was god.”
naturalist: “The cause was the laws of physics.”
theist: “well, what brought the laws of physics into being?”
naturalist: “well, what brought god into being?”
theist: “god is a necessary being that always existed”
naturalist: “the laws of physics are necessary and have always existed.”
Try as they might, theists attempt to differentiate god and the laws of physics, explaining why god is logically necessary while the laws of physics are not, but of course, this is just word play. There is no logical argument as to one being more necessary than the other. The theist says that the eternal cause must be a free agent, because otherwise the effect would ‘always’ exist, as opposed to begin to exist. But of course, the effect HAS always existed. Show me a time when the effect didn’t exist! Time itself is part of the effect! There is no time when the effect didn’t exist! Theist have great fun trying to put the right sounding words in the right order, but to no avail.
Regarding Robert Jastrow’s quote: Do you really want to argue that theologians have more knowledge than physicists? Physicists can send rockets to other planets, usher in the era of computers and iphones, make extremely precise predictions and match them to experiment, fundamentally change the way the rest of us live our lives, and have their thoughts and hard work vindicated by empirical results. What can theologians do, exactly, that other people can’t do?
Theologians are kind of like the cliche high school jock who laugh and tell you how cool they are, even as the rest of the class graduates, gets real jobs, makes real advances, and leaves the jock to work at the car wash. Have fun hanging out with those guys. (I have nothing against athletes, I’m a marathon runner myself, it’s just an analogy.) Theologians make claim like they have important deep thoughts, but their effects are increasingly inconsequential as they are being left behind by the modern world.
Your first sentence has to be a mistake: “creation ex nihilo”? You believe that the universe was created? And to your question about the “what then?” were we to grant the possibility of a cause, I do think certain reasonable deductions from that premise open the door, as Craig suggested, to certain theological claims. Christianity has never claimed mathematically precise proof for the existence of God. Indeed, the gospel itself would seem to preclude that as even being a possibility, given the fallenness and finitude of our own minds. But then many of the great verities are unverifiable with that kind of specificity: love, transcendence, the human intellect, will, etc.
And believe me, I have no desire to deny your assertion that “the cosmologist community is thoroughly diverse in their speculation.” No doubt that’s so, but you’ll forgive me if the thoroughly diverse speculations of cosmologists do not move me. I do commend you for naming it what it is: speculation. In that, you and I are agreed.
My objection is definitional: the very notion that science can ever get outside of and behind reality and all that is in order to prove first causes will, as a matter of course, always be speculative. However, the conjecturing and speculation I hear that is attempting to deny those intuitive truths you refer to as ill-defined and likely dismissable make the speculations of theologians pale in comparison.
My objection is the staggering blind optimism of naturalism, the inability of literally any human being actually to live up to the logical outcome of a view of the universe as self-causing, ultimately-meaningless, purely random, and without any objective basis for truth, morality, and ethics (another claim that is experientially vapid and ultimately unlivable), and the sheer hubris of any effort to reduce transcendent truths to primitive ignornace. I will give you points here, though: that may be the first time I have ever seen theologians likened to jocks! Ha! Have you ever been around theologians? 🙂
You’ll have to understand that, in addition to my skepticism about the overreach of the speculative conjectures of some cosmologist, I see absolutely no reason to abandon the compelling explanatory power of the teachings and person of Jesus, or the vision of reality that He articulated: a vision that I see confirmed everywhere I look and a vision that has changed my life forever.
I’ll give you the last word, if you’d like, though it’ll likely just be between us. My blog never has been ga place for long, protracted arguments, especially when I can already predict the circles in which we are about to run. But I do, sincerely, appreciate your thoughts, and am grateful you stopped by.
I wish I would have known about this. Sounds like it was lively.
You would’ve found it interesting, Caleb.
A little late, but I finally got around to watching this debate. I thought both participants were, on the whole, very respectful of each other and the audience. I didn’t perceive this smarminess from Carroll that you speak of. I suppose its natural for one to project arrogance onto a person who is arguing confidently and assertively in favor of a disagreeable position
You mentioned that the greatest weakness in William lane Craig’s argument is his arguments against infinite regressions. Ok, I’ll bite. Can you show any infinities outside of conceptual thinking existing in the universe?
Listening at least to Dr. Carroll’s opening argument, he places great emphasis on the ‘quantum eternal theory’ to cut down Craig’s argument against the past time boundary of the universe. This is absurd. He gives two initial conditions as to why this is plausible, namely an energy signature above zero, and unchangeable constants. What he didn’t explain is how any energy at all is introduced into a closed system, or how unchangeability over time violates the second law of thermodynamics. His entire argument, as he accused Craig of, was nothing more than conjecture with bigger words. He also claims that the BVG theorem does not indicate a past time boundary, but said that the math simply breaks down as you approach initial conditions. Not according to Alexander Valenkin, one of the authors of the theorem. Valenkin (who is not a Christian) most certainly supposes a past time boundary, and in his book, presses physicists to contend with that quandary. In an interview (avaliable on YouTube), he even admits that physical laws pre-existing initial conditions of a quantum singularity as the initial condition of the singularity which produced the universe would be quite mysterious. I was also quite astonished at Carroll’s offering that untenable models of initial conditions somehow exonerates him of medieval thinking. Perhaps it does, but not from bad thinking, as he demonstrates when he says that ‘modeling’ is what’s most important. My young kids know that when they give a wrong answer in spelling, they don’t get an A just because they tried. This point is missed on Caroll I assume because at his elitist level, providing correct answers is simply too trite an exercise of his time. But giving us incorrect answers time and again certainly is a waste of ours.
I’m sorry,but this is the most possibly biased review that could ever be written about the debate.
Don’t be! Your opinion is welcome here.
Wyman,
As far as I can tell, the Quantum Eternity Theorem can be found here (I uploaded it):
https://i.imgur.com/1BqlmI4.jpg
It’s from Professor David Griffith’s Quantum Mechanics book (now in its 2nd edition). You are free to believe that planets go around the Sun because there are angels or other invisible agents pushing them, or that they move because they have momentum (hence, energy) in a gravitational field.
Same applies, in my opinion, to the existence of the Cosmos.
Best,
Dawn
Dawn, thank you so much for the comment. I have never met a Christian who believes “that planets go around the Sun because there are angels or other invisible agents pushing them” and have certainly never believed that myself but I do appreciate your granting my right to believe such. Lol! I know that some Christians have believed such alongside equally fascinating ideas held by non-theists throughout the ages.
I believe in the laws or rules of nature just as you do, though examination of these laws and rules and the extrapolation of conclusions and hypotheses from said examination (which I take to be, in a rudimentary sense, the task of science) really does have a very limited capacity to get outside of or behind itself to discuss the first causes that established such energy in the first place. Hence, the ongoing discussion. I’d recommend David Bentley Hart’s The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss as a helpful recent take on the topic.
But I do indeed wish you all the best as well and I thank you for commenting here.
Wyman