Begging the BIG questions.
Our best explanation for the origin of the universe is the big bang theory. The evidence for it is compelling: it predicts that the galaxies should be moving away from each other, that there should be residual heat left over from this cosmic primordial fireball and there should be a particular ratio of hydrogen to helium. Our observations confirm beyond any reasonable doubt, that these predictions are correct and this evidence has led to the Big Bang theory becoming almost universally accepted as one of the most successful scientific theories ever proposed. Even the age of the universe has now been determined, with great accuracy, to be around 13 billion years (1).
Yet despite these huge advances in humankind’s knowledge of the origins of existence, there still remain mysteries. If the universe had a beginning, what began it? Or is there something wrong with insisting that “all things have a cause”? The physicists tell us nothing happened before the big bang because time and space came into existence with the universe. Indeed our latest, best version of the big bang theory begins with the Hawking-Hartle “no boundary” model of the universe that contends the closer and closer we get to the beginning of the universe the more space like becomes time and the more time like becomes space until they are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable (2). Therefore the beginning of the universe did not occur “in time”, avoiding any problems about “what caused the universe” as there was no time = 0 when the universe began. Rather time and space gradually emerged from one another, rendering any discussion about “what preceded” this or that event in the early universe meaningless. The laws of physics as physicists Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle argue seem to lead to the conclusion that the universe is entirely self contained (3). Moreover, where before it was thought that the universe began as a singularity where the laws of physics broke down, Hartle and Hawking showed that the singularity could be avoided, that the universe can just “be”. Prior to time and space being distinguishable as dimensions, in the early universe they were intertwined in such as way that the universe was, literally, timeless. It simply was, and the laws of physics, according to the cosmologists, now show how the universe can begin, not in time, but with time, emerging from nothingness and becoming existence. Why did it emerge, though? That question need not be asked, as events can occur without cause in the quantum world, we are told. At least quantum theory suggests spontaneous events can occur. The decay of an atomic nucleus is a spontaneous event. As the universe was once smaller than any nuclei, it was once subject to the laws of quantum theory. Therefore, ‘uncaused’ events - such as the spontaneous appearance of the universe are permitted. This idea goes to the heart of quantum cosmology - the unification of the theories of the very smallest structures with the theories of the very largest structures.
Physicists, especially cosmologists, are quite rightly proud of the successes of the Big Bang theory. But are they overly proud of the philosophical conclusions they have drawn? Can humankind be satisfied with the statement “the universe began without cause.” As a student of astronomy I wanted to accept the scientific view, but as a student of philosophy something nagged at me. There was nothing wrong with the science, but there seemed to be a fatal flaw in the philosophy...
"It really comes down to the Administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war," Mr Wilson told The Washington Post. "It begs the question, what else are they lying about?" (4) So said the former US Ambassador to Australia in an interview recently about the war in Iraq.
Quite a bit of begging the question goes on in the popular media, but it is rare you will ever discover exactly where the circularity lay. Somewhere, somehow, the phrase (okay, clause) to beg the question has come to mean “It raises the question”. In philosophy however begging the question is something quite different; it is one of the most grave of philosophical sins. Truly begging the question is a philosophical faux pax the equivalent of professional negligence because to beg the question is to advance a circular argument…and nothing is ever demonstrated by a circular argument.
Yet it is a sin which has been repeated over and again when it comes to the big questions - the questions about God, life, the universe and everything. Begging these big questions seems commonplace when one looks into the history of attempted answers to questions about existence and the origins of it all. Proofs for the existence of God have been accused over and again of begging the question. One of the more famous cases of begging the question while trying to answer one of the big ones, “Does God exist?” occurs in Descartes’ Meditations. This begging of a big one lives on in infamy known as “The Cartesian Circle”. Essentially the circle runs thus:
Descartes seeks to prove the existence of God using what is called the Ontological Argument, a version of which can be traced at least to the 11th Century (5). Despite some people arguing that Descartes ‘proves’ the existence of God in two slightly different ways, implying that the circle is not a vicious circle, we will ignore these complications!
Descartes begins by arguing that what you can know ‘clearly and distinctly’ is guaranteed to be true (6). How can you be sure of that, though? You can be sure because a perfectly benevolent God would not deceive you. But how do I know God exists? Well is it possible for you to hold in your mind clearly and distinctly the idea of a supremely perfect being? If it is, you must recognise that part of the essence of a supremely perfect being is existence. If this being didn’t exist, then it wouldn’t be perfect. Yet you have admitted it is possible to hold in your mind clearly and distinctly the idea of such a being, therefore that being must exist. So God exists.
Can you spot the circularity? We begin with a sneaky assumption that God exists and then go on to use this very assumption as the basis for our proof that he does indeed exist. If one of the assumptions in your proof is what you are trying to demonstrate you have ventured a circular argument. An assumption in an argument is an assumption of truth. If we can already assume that a perfectly benevolent being exists, why proceed any further? There is no need. Certainly we cannot use such an assumption to prove the existence of God. That would be a tautology amounting to: God exists therefore God exists.
The ontological argument may have fallen out of favour, but the cosmological argument which is just as old, has not. A version of the cosmological argument, also known as the first cause argument, runs in this way:
Everything has a creator
The universe is a creation
Therefore the universe has a creator
That creator is God
This argument seems quite weak, yet it is no “straw-man” as versions of it - no matter how sophisticated - essentially are reducible to it. The circularity lies in assuming that there is always a creator. As God is, in part, defined as “Creator of the Universe”, we’ve already achieved our objective before we have even begun. Often those who use this argument will change the terms, speaking about ‘causes’ rather than ‘creators’ or ‘necessary beings’ rather than ‘Gods’, etc. But it all amounts to a position that argues: just by virtue of its existence, the universe demands a cause - and that cause is God. It cannot just appear out of nothing, now can it? One attempts to explain the existence of God by the existence of the universe, but also one explains the existence of the universe by the existence of God. This is begging the question with a vengeance and in the process makes a mockery of the notion of explanation. What we looking for in asking these questions about God and our origins is an explanation for the beginning of the universe. Circular arguments like those above do quite the opposite as the answer is contained in the question being asked.
But the serious thinker need not be concerned anymore, surely. For the big questions are now answered by science and physicists, the new priests, can now explain it all, can’t they? Surely the new arguments for the origins of it all are free of the errors of old? Surely our best big bang theories don’t beg the big one?
Hawking and Hartle suggest that the universe came into existence from nothing, and though it has not existed forever it did not have a beginning in time. On closer inspection however, the ‘nothing’ to which the cosmologic communicators refer is actually a rather finely tuned type of nothing, a nothing where there is no time or space, but nonetheless a something; a sea of quantum foam where random quantum fluctuations actually gave rise to the universe we now observe. In this sense, we have a universe that is certainly 'caused' (caused by quantum vacuum fluctuations) - though its beginning was spontaneous - that is unpredictable - but not what the reasonable person would say is uncaused as such. Something was prior, logically prior to the universe. A universe which arises out of nothing is said to arise out of nothing because the laws of physics demonstrate that it is possible such a thing may occur. But if we 'prove' that the universe came from nothing based upon what the laws of physics say and then say that the laws of physics 'prove' why it could not have been otherwise - we beg the question about the existence of the laws of physics. Where did they come from? Nowhere - they came into existence with the universe - they do not exist separately from it. So the laws prove that they themselves have come from nowhere. Paul Davies explains, "In the Hartle-Hawking scheme there is no actual moment of creation at which their law applies. Nevertheless, it is still proposed as an explanation for why the universe has the form it does." (7) Do these laws even exist in the same way that that matter, energy, time and space do? Davies says, "If physical reality is somehow built on the laws of physics, then these laws must have an independent existence in some sense" (8). A standard conversation with your local cosmologist about how the universe came into being might run:
The universe came into being with the big bang., indeed the universe was the big bang.
So what caused the big bang?
There was no cause because there was no time.
Then explain how the big bang occurred.
According to the laws of physics (insert Hawking-Hartle model here…)
So the laws of physics are logically prior?
Which seems reasonable, but don't we really want to know where those laws came from? Aren't they a part of the existence we are trying to explain?
Where did the laws of physics come from?
They originated at the big bang.
But why did the big bang occur?
Because the laws of physics said it would.
But doesn’t this beg the question?
Which seems to leave the argument from no cause as another form of the argument from first cause by changing the terms.
It seems somewhat absurd to say “we know that the universe including the laws of physics began in this way because the laws of physics say they did”. It seems much like saying “We know what is written on this page because of the words that are written there”. What is offered as an explanation is at best a description, but more drastically, it is circular. What we are really searching for is “Why are those words there?” or “Where did existence, which includes the laws of physics, come from?” It is frustrating that the standard answer has become, “We know that the universe evolved in this way because the laws of physics say it did” also reply to that question “The laws of physics came from nowhere. They don’t exist in the same way that the universe does, but rather they are merely a description of what goes on in the universe.”
All of this is to say that the theories themselves are not necessarily deficient, on the whole, but rather that the exposition of them has been, to date. The theory itself may be sound, but the translation of the mathematics into English has perhaps been wanting - leading to a circularity perhaps not inherent in the original theories. A full explanation of any sufficiently mathematical scientific theory, may well always present philosophical difficulties if we are to navigate the logical waters without sinking the ship in a whirlpool of circularity. The cosmologists are to be commended for their answers to the big questions, but until their expositions improve they may still have to answer to the philosophers about whether they are begging the big ones.
(1) Charles Lineweaver A Younger Age For The Universe May 28, 1999, Science 284, 1503)
Paper available at: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Lineweaver/frames.html
(2) Stephen Hawking The Universe in a nutshell (2001) Random House, Sydney Australia pp 82 - 85,
see also Charles Lineweaver In the beginning, the origin of the universe (2000) Newton September 2000, Issue 1.
(3) Hartle, J. and Hawking, S. "Wave Function Of The Universe" (1983) Physical Review D, 28, pp.2960-2975
"The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)"
(4) Marian Wilkinson PM told of doubts on Iraqi arms: US official (2003) Sydney Morning Herald, July 7, 2003) available at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/06/1057430079142.html
(5) Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) Proslogion (c1077)
(6) Rene Descartes A discourse on method meditations and principles “Meditation III Of God: That he exists” (1641) Everyman, Orion House, London pp 88-102
(7) p 92, The Mind of God Paul Davies 1992
(8) p 84, The Mind of God Paul Davies 1992.
Our best explanation for the origin of the universe is the big bang theory. The evidence for it is compelling: it predicts that the galaxies should be moving away from each other, that there should be residual heat left over from this cosmic primordial fireball and there should be a particular ratio of hydrogen to helium. Our observations confirm beyond any reasonable doubt, that these predictions are correct and this evidence has led to the Big Bang theory becoming almost universally accepted as one of the most successful scientific theories ever proposed. Even the age of the universe has now been determined, with great accuracy, to be around 13 billion years (1).
Yet despite these huge advances in humankind’s knowledge of the origins of existence, there still remain mysteries. If the universe had a beginning, what began it? Or is there something wrong with insisting that “all things have a cause”? The physicists tell us nothing happened before the big bang because time and space came into existence with the universe. Indeed our latest, best version of the big bang theory begins with the Hawking-Hartle “no boundary” model of the universe that contends the closer and closer we get to the beginning of the universe the more space like becomes time and the more time like becomes space until they are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable (2). Therefore the beginning of the universe did not occur “in time”, avoiding any problems about “what caused the universe” as there was no time = 0 when the universe began. Rather time and space gradually emerged from one another, rendering any discussion about “what preceded” this or that event in the early universe meaningless. The laws of physics as physicists Stephen Hawking and Jim Hartle argue seem to lead to the conclusion that the universe is entirely self contained (3). Moreover, where before it was thought that the universe began as a singularity where the laws of physics broke down, Hartle and Hawking showed that the singularity could be avoided, that the universe can just “be”. Prior to time and space being distinguishable as dimensions, in the early universe they were intertwined in such as way that the universe was, literally, timeless. It simply was, and the laws of physics, according to the cosmologists, now show how the universe can begin, not in time, but with time, emerging from nothingness and becoming existence. Why did it emerge, though? That question need not be asked, as events can occur without cause in the quantum world, we are told. At least quantum theory suggests spontaneous events can occur. The decay of an atomic nucleus is a spontaneous event. As the universe was once smaller than any nuclei, it was once subject to the laws of quantum theory. Therefore, ‘uncaused’ events - such as the spontaneous appearance of the universe are permitted. This idea goes to the heart of quantum cosmology - the unification of the theories of the very smallest structures with the theories of the very largest structures.
Physicists, especially cosmologists, are quite rightly proud of the successes of the Big Bang theory. But are they overly proud of the philosophical conclusions they have drawn? Can humankind be satisfied with the statement “the universe began without cause.” As a student of astronomy I wanted to accept the scientific view, but as a student of philosophy something nagged at me. There was nothing wrong with the science, but there seemed to be a fatal flaw in the philosophy...
"It really comes down to the Administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war," Mr Wilson told The Washington Post. "It begs the question, what else are they lying about?" (4) So said the former US Ambassador to Australia in an interview recently about the war in Iraq.
Quite a bit of begging the question goes on in the popular media, but it is rare you will ever discover exactly where the circularity lay. Somewhere, somehow, the phrase (okay, clause) to beg the question has come to mean “It raises the question”. In philosophy however begging the question is something quite different; it is one of the most grave of philosophical sins. Truly begging the question is a philosophical faux pax the equivalent of professional negligence because to beg the question is to advance a circular argument…and nothing is ever demonstrated by a circular argument.
Yet it is a sin which has been repeated over and again when it comes to the big questions - the questions about God, life, the universe and everything. Begging these big questions seems commonplace when one looks into the history of attempted answers to questions about existence and the origins of it all. Proofs for the existence of God have been accused over and again of begging the question. One of the more famous cases of begging the question while trying to answer one of the big ones, “Does God exist?” occurs in Descartes’ Meditations. This begging of a big one lives on in infamy known as “The Cartesian Circle”. Essentially the circle runs thus:
Descartes seeks to prove the existence of God using what is called the Ontological Argument, a version of which can be traced at least to the 11th Century (5). Despite some people arguing that Descartes ‘proves’ the existence of God in two slightly different ways, implying that the circle is not a vicious circle, we will ignore these complications!
Descartes begins by arguing that what you can know ‘clearly and distinctly’ is guaranteed to be true (6). How can you be sure of that, though? You can be sure because a perfectly benevolent God would not deceive you. But how do I know God exists? Well is it possible for you to hold in your mind clearly and distinctly the idea of a supremely perfect being? If it is, you must recognise that part of the essence of a supremely perfect being is existence. If this being didn’t exist, then it wouldn’t be perfect. Yet you have admitted it is possible to hold in your mind clearly and distinctly the idea of such a being, therefore that being must exist. So God exists.
Can you spot the circularity? We begin with a sneaky assumption that God exists and then go on to use this very assumption as the basis for our proof that he does indeed exist. If one of the assumptions in your proof is what you are trying to demonstrate you have ventured a circular argument. An assumption in an argument is an assumption of truth. If we can already assume that a perfectly benevolent being exists, why proceed any further? There is no need. Certainly we cannot use such an assumption to prove the existence of God. That would be a tautology amounting to: God exists therefore God exists.
The ontological argument may have fallen out of favour, but the cosmological argument which is just as old, has not. A version of the cosmological argument, also known as the first cause argument, runs in this way:
Everything has a creator
The universe is a creation
Therefore the universe has a creator
That creator is God
This argument seems quite weak, yet it is no “straw-man” as versions of it - no matter how sophisticated - essentially are reducible to it. The circularity lies in assuming that there is always a creator. As God is, in part, defined as “Creator of the Universe”, we’ve already achieved our objective before we have even begun. Often those who use this argument will change the terms, speaking about ‘causes’ rather than ‘creators’ or ‘necessary beings’ rather than ‘Gods’, etc. But it all amounts to a position that argues: just by virtue of its existence, the universe demands a cause - and that cause is God. It cannot just appear out of nothing, now can it? One attempts to explain the existence of God by the existence of the universe, but also one explains the existence of the universe by the existence of God. This is begging the question with a vengeance and in the process makes a mockery of the notion of explanation. What we looking for in asking these questions about God and our origins is an explanation for the beginning of the universe. Circular arguments like those above do quite the opposite as the answer is contained in the question being asked.
But the serious thinker need not be concerned anymore, surely. For the big questions are now answered by science and physicists, the new priests, can now explain it all, can’t they? Surely the new arguments for the origins of it all are free of the errors of old? Surely our best big bang theories don’t beg the big one?
Hawking and Hartle suggest that the universe came into existence from nothing, and though it has not existed forever it did not have a beginning in time. On closer inspection however, the ‘nothing’ to which the cosmologic communicators refer is actually a rather finely tuned type of nothing, a nothing where there is no time or space, but nonetheless a something; a sea of quantum foam where random quantum fluctuations actually gave rise to the universe we now observe. In this sense, we have a universe that is certainly 'caused' (caused by quantum vacuum fluctuations) - though its beginning was spontaneous - that is unpredictable - but not what the reasonable person would say is uncaused as such. Something was prior, logically prior to the universe. A universe which arises out of nothing is said to arise out of nothing because the laws of physics demonstrate that it is possible such a thing may occur. But if we 'prove' that the universe came from nothing based upon what the laws of physics say and then say that the laws of physics 'prove' why it could not have been otherwise - we beg the question about the existence of the laws of physics. Where did they come from? Nowhere - they came into existence with the universe - they do not exist separately from it. So the laws prove that they themselves have come from nowhere. Paul Davies explains, "In the Hartle-Hawking scheme there is no actual moment of creation at which their law applies. Nevertheless, it is still proposed as an explanation for why the universe has the form it does." (7) Do these laws even exist in the same way that that matter, energy, time and space do? Davies says, "If physical reality is somehow built on the laws of physics, then these laws must have an independent existence in some sense" (8). A standard conversation with your local cosmologist about how the universe came into being might run:
The universe came into being with the big bang., indeed the universe was the big bang.
So what caused the big bang?
There was no cause because there was no time.
Then explain how the big bang occurred.
According to the laws of physics (insert Hawking-Hartle model here…)
So the laws of physics are logically prior?
Which seems reasonable, but don't we really want to know where those laws came from? Aren't they a part of the existence we are trying to explain?
Where did the laws of physics come from?
They originated at the big bang.
But why did the big bang occur?
Because the laws of physics said it would.
But doesn’t this beg the question?
Which seems to leave the argument from no cause as another form of the argument from first cause by changing the terms.
It seems somewhat absurd to say “we know that the universe including the laws of physics began in this way because the laws of physics say they did”. It seems much like saying “We know what is written on this page because of the words that are written there”. What is offered as an explanation is at best a description, but more drastically, it is circular. What we are really searching for is “Why are those words there?” or “Where did existence, which includes the laws of physics, come from?” It is frustrating that the standard answer has become, “We know that the universe evolved in this way because the laws of physics say it did” also reply to that question “The laws of physics came from nowhere. They don’t exist in the same way that the universe does, but rather they are merely a description of what goes on in the universe.”
All of this is to say that the theories themselves are not necessarily deficient, on the whole, but rather that the exposition of them has been, to date. The theory itself may be sound, but the translation of the mathematics into English has perhaps been wanting - leading to a circularity perhaps not inherent in the original theories. A full explanation of any sufficiently mathematical scientific theory, may well always present philosophical difficulties if we are to navigate the logical waters without sinking the ship in a whirlpool of circularity. The cosmologists are to be commended for their answers to the big questions, but until their expositions improve they may still have to answer to the philosophers about whether they are begging the big ones.
(1) Charles Lineweaver A Younger Age For The Universe May 28, 1999, Science 284, 1503)
Paper available at: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Lineweaver/frames.html
(2) Stephen Hawking The Universe in a nutshell (2001) Random House, Sydney Australia pp 82 - 85,
see also Charles Lineweaver In the beginning, the origin of the universe (2000) Newton September 2000, Issue 1.
(3) Hartle, J. and Hawking, S. "Wave Function Of The Universe" (1983) Physical Review D, 28, pp.2960-2975
"The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator? ([9], pp. 136, 141)"
(4) Marian Wilkinson PM told of doubts on Iraqi arms: US official (2003) Sydney Morning Herald, July 7, 2003) available at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/06/1057430079142.html
(5) Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) Proslogion (c1077)
(6) Rene Descartes A discourse on method meditations and principles “Meditation III Of God: That he exists” (1641) Everyman, Orion House, London pp 88-102
(7) p 92, The Mind of God Paul Davies 1992
(8) p 84, The Mind of God Paul Davies 1992.