No, the big bang doesn't point to a divine creator

In my first post a few days ago about Ross Douthat's book, Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious, I said that I bought the book because "I was curious about how Douthat would make his arguments, figuring that it would be easy for atheists like me to undermine them."

Here I'll finish my critique of his first substantive chapter, "The Fashioned Universe," which I started making in that initial post about the book. 

It's easy for me to do this, because I'm already seeing a theme emerge in how Douthat tries to make his case for religious belief. Though he's clearly an excellent writer and is knowledgeable about many subjects, as befits his status as a New York Times opinion columnist, it's almost disappointing to see him rely on trite God of the Gaps arguments. Wikipedia says:

"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God.This perspective has its origins in the observation that some individuals, often with religious inclinations, point to areas where science falls short in explaining natural phenomena as opportunities to insert the presence of a divine creator. The term itself was coined in response to this tendency. This theological view suggests that God fills in the gaps left by scientific knowledge, and that these gaps represent moments of divine intervention or influence.

So it's a pretty lazy way to argue for a religious view of reality. All you have to do is find an area where science doesn't know something and claim, "See, that's evidence for God; science is clueless about this, while religion isn't."

Of course, that isn't true.

Religion is just as clueless as science is about how the big bang came to be, which includes where the laws of nature that guided the big bang came from. The difference is that science is open about its lack of knowledge in this area, while religion makes unverifiable claims about a creator God being behind it all.

Douthat writes:

The first blow to the idea of an indifferent cosmos was the twentieth-century realization that our universe appears to have a specific beginning, a point of origin prior to which not only space but time itself did not exist. 

If Darwin's theory arguably undermined a traditional Christian understanding of human origins, then the Big Bang theory offered a striking support for the Christian understanding of cosmic origins -- offering particular vindication to Augustine of Hippo, who insisted in the fourth century AD that God created time as well as space ex nihilo and exists outside both, in contrast to pagan critics of Christianity who assumed that the universe had to be eternal.

Okay, Augustine was correct about time being created along with space. But it was science, not religion, that came up with demonstrable evidence for the big bang. Douthat does make a good argument against the view of some scientists that the universe sprang out of nothing, the laws of quantum mechanics acting upon quantum fields. 

I agree with Douthat that quantum fields and laws aren't nothing. However, I have no problem envisioning that the cosmos has always existed, along with the laws of nature that allow universes to come into being within the eternal reaches of the cosmos, as this makes more sense to me than an unseen creator God having always existed.

Douthat also notes that the laws of nature are marvelously fine-tuned in a fashion that allows the universe, and life within it, to exist. I've read many science books that make the same point. He disparages the idea of the multiverse, which explains why the laws of our universe are so amenable to life: countless other universes in the cosmos aren't suitable for life, but obviously we are in one that is.

To escape the possibility of a single invisible God, it [the multiverse concept] posits an infinite number of invisible universes that we can never hope to reach or see. To avoid the mind-preceding-matter immaterialism suggested by the universe's apparent fine-tuning and the strange role of human observation in collapsing potentiality into reality, it posits an infinite system that by definition cannot ever be studied from within our material existence.

Well, neither can God. At least the multiverse concept builds on something indisputably real, our universe. Notions about God have no connection with here-and-now reality, being creations of the human mind divorced from anything that can actually be known by our usual senses.

By the way, Douthat's comment about human observation collapsing potentiality into reality at the quantum level is just one of various ways quantum theory accounts for the possible turning into the actual. It's incorrect to hold that consciousness is needed for this to happen. Other theories are popular in the area of quantum physics.

As noted before, Douthat has an annoying habit of choosing an unproven scientific hypothesis, elevating it to a scientific certainty, and then arguing how ridiculous science is for believing in it -- whereas actually science is comfortable with simply saying, "This might be true, or it might be false. More research is needed to determine which it is."

Because religions are so dogmatic, Douthat seems to believe that science is also, while the exact opposite is true. Science loves gaps in knowledge, for those mysteries are what allow science to make progress at learning more about the unknown.

Comments

[sant64]

"However, I have no problem envisioning that the cosmos has always existed, along with the laws of nature that allow universes to come into being within the eternal reaches of the cosmos, as this makes more sense to me than an unseen creator God having always existed."

A few paragraphs back you admitted that science and religion were correct about the universe arising ex nihilo. What then does "envisioning" an eternal universe have to do with anything?

"As noted before, Douthat has an annoying habit of choosing an unproven scientific hypothesis, elevating it to a scientific certainty, and then arguing how ridiculous science is for believing in it -- whereas actually, science is comfortable with simply saying, "This might be true, or it might be false. More research is needed to determine which it is.""

Again, you admitted that science was correct that the universe began ex nihilo from the Big Bang. Now you seem to be saying that science is always 50-50 on whether their findings are true or false? In any case, the context of Douthat's comment on consciousness is within concepts of quantum physics. Note Douthat says "concepts," and here he's referencing the Copenhagen interpretation.

"Because religions are so dogmatic, Douthat seems to believe that science is also, while the exact opposite is true. Science loves gaps in knowledge, for those mysteries are what allows science to make progress at learning more about the unknown."

Yes, religions can be very dogmatic, very closed to contrarian opinions and even science.

But ironically, you're taking the stance that I saw online religious apologists use to shut down critiques of their religion: The highly spiritual, quasi advaitic "We don't claim to know anything" stance. Your guru made outrageous claims for his spiritual majesty, and also was rumored to be caught with his pants down in a Cincinnati hotel? "Sorry, but we don't *know* if either is true, and that's because nothing can be known, only experienced. Or envisioned."

In any case, matters of relativism aside, the weight of scientific opinion is very strong that the universe started from absolutely nothing 13.8 billion years ago. Science is also very strong that the manifold fine-tuning of the universe is beyond coincidental. Let's accept those findings of science as they are and give Douthat's argument a fair chance.

[Appreciative Reader]

Thanks for that clear discussion, Brian. And again, thanks also for bringing up this book in the first place. Absolutely, we should indeed engage not just with opinions and works that agree with our beliefs, but also with those that are directly the opposite of what we believe. And do that with an open mind, to see if perchance there’s anything of worth there, that one might learn from.

Not so in this case, nothing at all to “learn”, other than an object lesson in how NOT to think and reason.

Agreed 100% with your analysis of the portions you quote. The man’s simply embarrassing himself. Imagine actually writing a book to parade this halfwittery.

[Jimmy]

Elon is God but so is everyone. He just uses his imagination(God/Jesus) better than most.

[manjit]

One of the most egregious inverse strawman arguments invoked by 1 or 2 materialists here is that of the "God of the Gaps" dismissal of the many avenues of scientific research which, if not point to, at least leaves open the possibility, of some sort of "God" or "Divinity".

Whilst this argument could fly in some academic or theologic circles, this type of sleight of hand chicanery should be called out here, a blog grounded in at least a school of theoretical direct experiential insight into Reality, consciousness or "God" which transcends all duality, thoughts and concepts (scientific ones included.....gasp, the horror, the horror!).

I have pointed out this not too complex point before, obviously to the sound of crickets:

It is in direct, experiential, ontological consciousness and being that the "Divine" or "God" is, for want of a better word, sensed or experienced. And that's the point; there are absolutely no words, concepts or scientific data of any sort which can prove the reality which transcends the subject-object dichotomy. There are no words or concepts which can DESCRIBE the reality.

To adapt the blind men and the elephant metaphor, the blind men are words and the elephant is Reality, or God or whatever flimsy label one wants to apply to IT. No words or combinations of words will ever be able to embrace the whole elephant. The words have some truth & relevance locally - "the elephant is hard, dry and rigid like stone (tusks)" or "the elephant is soft, flexible and sprays water (trunk) etc - but they are also incomplete & contradictory and do not describe the elephant in it's glorious totality.

So what we have here with this oft repeated inverse straw man is this; the mystic says there is this Mysterious "Something". And it is truly awesome. If you are drawn to it, come, let's dance and play. There is unimaginable astonishment, joy, wonder, love and ecstasy to be found by losing one's self and diving into this infinite Ocean.

BUT, it is beyond words, concepts and definitely science:

“Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment. Cleverness is mere opinion, bewilderment is intuition.”
― Rumi

On the other hand, the materialist and atheist state that their science has proven there is no God or Divine, that consciousness isn't mysterious and not understood at all, and the origins of the universe and life on earth are entirely unremarkable, random, mindless and meaningless accidents.

In response, a great many scientists, philosophers and indeed mystics have retorted, "ahh, but actually, there are GAPS in your science for these un-evidenced, ideological claims, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

They are not saying these things PROVE there is a God, they are saying they ALLOW for the possibility, and your claims these are dis-proven are, in fact, unscientific and ideologically based statements of belief.

Do you see where the sleight of hand occurs? The inverse straw man?

Pay close attention, the Devil is in the Details.

Shalom.

[Appreciative Reader]

"it is beyond words, concepts and definitely science"

Nothing is. To think that is to misunderstand what science, at core, is.

----------

"a great many scientists, philosophers and indeed mystics have retorted, "ahh, but actually, there are GAPS in your science for these un-evidenced, ideological claims, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE."

Clearly this counter-argument comes from a position of not actually understanding just why God-of-the-Gaps is a fallacy.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment"

Physician, heal thyself.

[Appreciative Reader]

Enough with the faux profundity, already. Whether of the thuggish, oafish Jim-ish variety, or the more polished kind.

[um]

This is how an academic institute describes science:

https://lpsonline.sas.upenn.edu/features/understanding-goals-science

It start with a very important statement ..that its basic goal is to "describe through OBSERVATION"

Observation of what?
Can everything be observed?
etc

With a thief one cannot lift water...yet water is there

[Appreciative Reader]

"Observation of what?
Can everything be observed?"

Asking me, um? Or just airing your thoughts generally?

If the former, then happy to walk you through this. If the latter, then that's cool too, I'll not stick my oar in in that case.

[Brian Hines]

um, not everything science studies can be observed. But everything science studies has some observable effects. Dark matter is a good example.

I just read an essay in New Scientist that persuasively argued for calling dark matter, invisible matter. So I'll use that term, invisible matter. No one knows what invisible matter consists of. But it is virtually certain that it exists, because motions of galaxies don't make sense if only ordinary visible matter is considered.

So while science isn't able to observe this invisible matter, or know what it is, there's little doubt that it exists, because the effects of invisible matter can be observed through the motion of galaxies.

To me, this bears on the question of any supernatural entities that might exist. If they both can't be observed and have no observable effects in the physical world, then they don't exist from the standpoint of science. Or any other standpoint, really.

Again, it isn't whether something can be observed that makes it a subject for scientific investigation. It's whether that something has observable effects that make it a subject for scientific investigation.

[um]

@ Brian

>> To me, this bears on the question of any supernatural entities that might exist. If they both can't be observed and have no observable effects in the physical world, then they don't exist from the standpoint of science. Or any other standpoint, really.<<

I have no issues or ever had with science ..why should i?!

Science is a tool and an activity.
As a tool it is restricted in its use and as an activity it can be used and misused.

Restricted, in many ways. It can only observe an part of the whole at any time and subject and has to discard the interconnection with other things.

More over we as humans are bound by nature to what we can perceive by means of our body senses and brain ...to be compare with wearing coloured glasses.

There can be "dark matter" that we cannot detect, nor its effect as we simple do not have the instruments for [yet] or for which we will never have, because of our biological restrictions.

Personally I feel that scientists should stick to what they are good in as well as the mystics ..

Science is about the house, its building material, its construction etc
Spirituality is about the use of the same.