The cosmos doesn't have a cause

Often it's said that the biggest, grandest, most profound philosophical question of all time is... (drum roll, please) Why is there something rather than nothing?

I used to be entranced by this question. Now, I'm not. It doesn't make any sense to me. I've got some pretty impressive philosophical company in this regard: Bertrand Russell.

Here's what this agnostic philosopher said in his 1948 debate with Father Frederick C. Copleston (Jesuit Catholic priest).

I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all... I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother -- that's a different logical sphere.

Copleston and Russell discuss this issue for a while, until...

Copleston: But your general point then, Lord Russell, is that it's illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?

Russell: Yes, that's my position.

Copleston:  Well, if it's a question that for you has no meaning, it's of course very difficult to discuss it, isn't it?

Russell: Yes, it is very difficult. What do you say -- shall we pass on to some other issue?

In the comments on a recent post I had a similar sort of interesting interchange, where I believe my arguments were stronger (of course, I had some inspiration from Bertrand Russell). John said:

Brian,

An attractive force between two bodies exists.

Gravity is the attractive force between two bodies.

Gravity exists.

A cause of the universe existing exists.

God is the cause of the universe existing.

God exists.

Gravity and God are just the names we give to the respective phenomena (a) the attractive force between two bodies and (b) the cause of the universe existing. So, if we agree on what the names denote, then wouldn't the "demonstrable evidence in support of it (our claim)," be the phenomena (a) & (b)?

My response was:

John, what makes you think there is a cause for the universe existing? There is no evidence for this. We need to define our terms.

Do you take "universe" to mean everything in physical existence? If so, "cosmos" is the preferred term used by many/most scientists, since the multi-universe theory has a lot going for it. That is, the "universe" we are a part of may very well not be the only universe in existence.

So let's make your statement "A cause of the cosmos existing exists." Again, why? Couldn't the cosmos simply be, a given? There is a big logical (and reality) problem in assuming that the totality of existence has to behave like things in existence. This is the basic flaw in your argument.

We see that there are causes of things within the cosmos. So our human minds jump to the conclusion, "The cosmos must have a cause." But the cosmos isn't a thing. It is everything. You presume a vantage point from which you can look at the cosmos and say "It had a beginning; there was a cause of it."

Where is that vantage point?

Religious believers say that God is uncaused, eternal, always has been and always will be. But God is unseen and unknown. Why not posit the same qualities of the cosmos? It is uncaused, eternal, always has been and always will be.

If everything has to have a cause, then God also has to have a cause, so invoking God as the cause of the cosmos just shifts the question back up a level. I prefer to keep things as simple as possible. Let's call the cosmos uncaused.

John came back with:

Brian,

I don't know if there need be a cause for everything (and sorry for the loose usage of existence), but I don't believe that lack of knowledge in that regard gives one the grounds to assert an antithesis. That 'something is uncaused' is every bit the affirmative as 'everything has a cause.' Consequently, I could just as easily apply…

"if no such evidence exists, or if you do not yet know what is the proper conclusion which may logically be drawn from that evidence, then the agnostic principle demands that you refrain from adopting any conclusion as being the expression of ultimate truth."

… to: "Let's call the cosmos uncaused."

To which I channeled my inner Bertrand Russell and said:

John, my point was that a cosmic chain of causality has to end somewhere. Theologians like to end it at God, with divinity being the eternal entity that has been, is now, and always will be. A naturalistic scientific perspective ends the chain with what is observable: the cosmos.

So I'll stick with my assertion that the cosmos (defined as "everything in existence") must be uncaused. Otherwise we have to posit a cause of that "everything," which obviously is still part of "everything" since that cause exists.

If that cause had a cause, both causes are still part of "everything." So pretty obviously everything doesn't have a cause. Only things within everything do. This is marvelously clear to me; perhaps it isn't to you. That's fine.

Dan Barker, an evangelical preacher turned atheist, makes a similar point in his book "Godless" (also referring to the debate between Russell and Copleston).

If we even suggest that the universe (cosmos) is a discrete "thing" (not just a concept), we are implying a realm above and beyond the universe within which it is contained, limited and defined. This amounts to assuming transcendence.

Theistic philosophers hope no one will notice that the language they are using effortlessly conjures the existence of a realm beyond nature, portraying "the universe" from a distance as if "it" had an environment. It is easier for nontheists, who are not equipped to mix logical spheres to avoid such question begging.

Copleston, responding to Russell, asked: "But are you going to say that we can't, or we shouldn't, even raise the question of the existence of the whole of this sorry scheme of things -- of the whole universe?"

"Yes," Russell replied. "I don't think there's any meaning in it at all. I think the word 'universe' is a handy word in some connections, but I don't think it stands for anything that has a meaning." (Today, cosmologists would substitute the word "cosmos" for "universe," which is what Russell was talking about: the entirety of existence.)

There's an intriguing parallel between the notions of cosmos and us. Each word refers to an entity that isn't a separable thing, but we usually talk as if it is.

I mean, everything in existence is the cosmos. There's no vantage point where we can sit on high and make pronouncements about how the cosmos appears. We're part and parcel of it.

Likewise, everything that exists within (or as) our mind/brain/psyche is us. There's no vantage point where we can see ourselves from the outside. We are ourselves.

So the answers to "What is the cause of the cosmos?" and "Who am I?" turn out to be essentially identical:

That's a stupid question.

Comments

[The Rambling Taoist]

Well put!

[Rain]

Well I disagree that they are stupid questions. To ask who am I is to put ourselves in a position to analyze our skills and desires therefore improving our chance of living a life that has meaning to us. To ask what caused this cosmos is just a question that is logical to ask but may not have an answer. The problem with god as the answer is you are still left with an unknowable which mankind has always had. We don't know why the Cosmos is here. It is in the realm of mystery and may have no meaning or purpose by any higher power as to what started it into being, but we can give meaning to our own lives when we consider who we are. Supposing the cosmos has no meaning, was a lucky accident, we still don't have to live that way ourselves. We have a knowing choice we can make to give our lives meaning or just wander through it without a purpose. It's certainly possible to live the second way but it's also possible to live the first. It's a matter of what does one prefer.

[Steven Sashen]

This is one of those times where I like Buddhism (I don't all the time), since one of the Buddhist teachings is the "Four Imponderables," four phenomenon (or concepts) that, because they cannot be understood, are not even worth consideration. One of these imponderables: The cause and/or purpose of the cosmos.

We humans have the unfortunate cognitive glitch that when we can fathom a question, we assume there must be an answer. And our favorite realm for playing out that glitch (because it was so important to our survival back in the day when we developed thinking) seems to be cause-and-effect.

I'm shocked that optical illusions don't send us running, screaming, from the room, as they point out that our fundamental perceptual mechanisms don't hold up to reality as well as we believe. Maybe if our minds didn't also include the function of dismissing errors we would have less trouble recognizing that not all questions have answers and not all effects have determinable causes.

Of course, that would end the self-help business, the "how to succeed in business" business, and all the wasted time on superstitious behavior.

[Blogger Brian]

Rain, when I came to the end of writing this post last night I bounced back and forth between saying "That's a stupid question" and "That's a meaningless question."

I settled on stupid because sometimes we need a kick in the philosophical butt from a strong word.

It's sort of like me asking someone "Where are my car keys?" when she can see that I'm holding them in my hand. Responding (with a smile) "That's a stupid question" and pointing to my hand would be perfectly appropriate.

As Steven said above, some questions don't have answers. Other questions have simple answers. The car key example has a simple answer, whereas the cause of the cosmos or "Who am I?" are unanswerable questions.

Regarding the latter, Alan Watts does as good a job as anybody in making clear why this is so:

"The real reason why human life can be so utterly exasperating and frustrating is not because there are facts called death, pain, fear, or hunger. The madness of the thing is that when such facts are present, we circle, buzz, writhe, and whirl, trying to get the 'I' out of the experience. We pretend that we are amoebas and try to protect ourselves from life by splitting in two. Sanity, wholeness, and integration lie in the realization that we are not divided, that man and his present experience are one, and that no separate 'I' or mind can be found."

[Rain]

Interesting addition to your thoughts, Brian. Sometimes shock value does get people to think where finding something subtler would not.

I have a couple of blogs set up to post starting in a few days on the illusions in life. I thought about them and which ones to write about and ended the series of six with the greatest illusion of all which relates to who we are. Fooling ourselves, letting others tell us who we are or digging down and figuring it out for ourselves, we can do any of those things. Knowing ourselves, both our biology and our environment is a lifetime of work and in a world that doesn't really help us do it as the world is into selling illusions. It does make it all endlessly fascinating to me.

[George]

I think Rain is correct that they are not stupid questions.

They may be the wrong questions, but they may not be either.

The causal question may indeed be incorrect if the universe is eternal - and yet we still experience causality in our everyday experience, and science, is little more than very well honed observation. So i'm not sure if the jury is out on the causal question, not by a long shot.

Tho Brian appears that that whether that first cause, if it exists, is attributed to God or the universe seems immaterial.

On the 2nd question, 'who am i', this seems to be the big mystical question, but its not clear imo what is actually being asked. Is the question, who am i generally, i.e. what is the nature of a human being, or asking whether each indiivual has a destiny to carry out or a goal to achieve - the latter seems to be what the mystics require.

Evolutionists would argue we're animals, with complex brains having developed a first person view of reality (consciousness) , but that our personality is the result of our environmental conditioning and our inherent genetics, which combine in such compexity to give a unique personality. Like god, not sure how one can set about trying to prove the existence of a soul or innate spiritual potential. Still nothing at all wrong with the question.

[john]

I think it depends on how we define cause. The theists tell us the cosmos exists by the grace of God, and while granted that's somewhat vague, it's just a different type of causation (supportive cause) more akin to 'exists by virtue of' than a direct and observable cause. For example, if one asks, "what is the cause of life on earth?" I can't claim a particular life on earth is a direct cause of the sun, but I can claim that life exists by virtue of the sun.

On a larger scale (nearest I can follow the theories as to the ultimate nature of reality), we really don't know if things exist by virtue of space or space exists by virtue of things. In the case of the former, space being a non-thing that isn't directly observable and hence not part of everything, it wouldn't seem to meet the materialist's criteria for causation.

Yet 'things existing by the virtue of space' may very well be the nature of reality, and I think one could claim that everything that exists, exists by virtue of space and without space no thing could exist. So if that scenario turns out to be the case, we're left with a non-material, non-observable space as the cause, albeit supportive, of the cosmos.

Now I don't know if the above is the case, but I do know it's a legitimate and supported possibility. And as long as it remains possible, I can't claim it's opposite as necessary or a more likely scenario. Both scenarios are possible, hence no conclusion can be drawn.

- John