Is Agnosticism Tenable?

Over the years, I’ve encountered a few friends that have subscribed to agnosticism because they concluded that there is no way to possibly know whether or not there is a God. According to Oxford Dictionaries, agnostic is defined as, “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God”.[1] I’ve heard prominent atheist Michael Shermer express his admiration during a debate for the bumper sticker that states, “Militant Agnostic: I Don’t Know and You Don’t Either”. Since many non-believers have chosen to take this stance, I thought it would be a good idea to further examine the tenability of such a position as it is comfortably placed between theism and atheism.

As proclaimed by Christopher Hitchens during his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig at Biola University, he feels “agnosticism is evasive”.[2] Does this claim against agnosticism by the late Christopher Hitchens, one of the four housemen of the New Athiesm, hold any credibility? I would venture to say that it does. I’ve included a video of William Lane Craig discussing agnosticism and how it is “practically untenable”. The reasoning for why agnosticism is “practically untenable” is because a true agnostic would have to have the evidence for atheism and theism be perfectly balanced on both sides in order to genuinely hold it for an entire lifetime if one chooses to be a long-term agnostic. While this possibility may be “theoretically possible” it is “impossible practically”.

Later in the video, Craig asked an analogous question of a chicken laying an egg on the peak of a barn roof, “which side would the egg fall?” One side of the roof would represent “theism” and the other side would represent “atheism”. The agnostic would have to perfectly balance their “philosophical egg” on the peak of the roof without having it fall to one side or the other. This analogy effectively represents how untenable agnosticism truly is when looking at the evidence in its entirety for both positions. Keep in mind; you don’t have to have 100% empirical proof for one position or the other in order to hold to that particular position. You can believe in something without knowing it absolutely. I’ve heard many theologians use the analogy of a marriage. You have no way of absolutely knowing whether your marriage will endure prior to marrying your spouse-to-be. That is a reality for everyone. You have to take all the information you have about your spouse and make the best decision. If that information leads you to the conclusion that this person is worth the risk, it may be best to make the decision to marry him/her which will hopefully result in much happiness. If you remain an agnostic about this spouse-to-be, you could potentially pass up what could have been an excellent opportunity for happiness and companionship. You’ll never get married because you are unable to commit due to your hyper-skepticism which has led to the inability to make decision. The point is that despite whether you know with 100% certainty that your marriage will be successful shouldn’t prevent you from making a decision. The same can be said about atheism and theism. There is enough information out there to make a decision if one is truly searching for answers. As Hitchens rightly said, “agnosticism is evasive”.

For agnostics, it is appropriate to ask whether they have been skeptical of their skepticism. Have they looked at the evidence enough to make an informed opinion on the matter? Don’t get me wrong, skepticism can be a very healthy thing when investigating a matter that that you are unfamiliar with. It assists in the avoidance of accepting information as truth too hastily. It allows us to check out all perspectives before making a determination on how you feel on the matter. However, becoming skeptical to the point of intellectually refusing to make a decision because you’ve submitted to be a “Militant Agnostic: I Don’t Know and You Don’t Either” only evades the question at hand.

In the video below, prominent Christian apologist Greg Koukl highlights the problematic nature of some forms of agnosticism. When speaking with an agnostic, he suggests evaluating the reasons for their skepticism and see if there are any underlying presuppositions that are leading them to this skepticism. The very reason for their skepticism could be that they’re not being critical enough of their own skepticism to have a genuine understanding of why they are skeptical in the first place.

---

[1] Oxford Dictionaries. Definition of “agnostic”, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

[2] Debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens at Biola University in 2009, “Does God Exist?”

Dr. Craig Hazen Lecture Reviews

In full support of my friend and fellow apologist Mikel Del Rosario (AKA Apologetics Guy), I’ve reviewed two lectures that he is selling on his website, http://www.apologeticsguy.com/, that were given by Dr. Craig Hazen at a Christian apologetics conference. These lectures are being sold for $1.99/each. I would strongly encourage everyone to consider purchasing these lectures as they contain valuable information for a deeper insight into the Christian worldview and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The two lectures I reviewed are titled, “The Certainty of Christ in an Age of Unbelief” and “The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus”. I’ve included them below along with their respective URLs.

“The Certainty of Christ in an Age of Unbelief” – Review

http://www.apologeticsguy.com/shop/certainty-of-christ-in-an-age-of-unbelief-lecture-craig-hazen-biola/

This topic is very important in a modern day secular society because many skeptics are under the false impression that NO faith is founded in any objective evidence. While this may be the impression among society, Dr. Hazen is acutely in tune with the fact that it is a completely invalid assertion without any evidential basis. 

Dr. Hazen has earned his doctorate from the University of California in religious studies. That essentially means that he has a vast amount of knowledge on Christianity as well most other religions around the globe. His knowledge on topics of religion contains the solid foundation of scholarship necessary to validate the claim that you can be “certain of Christ in an age of unbelief”.

 While I want to review the lecture, not summarize it, I do want to bring to attention some of the key points that I found to be the most beneficial for a listener of belief or of non-belief.  Anyone who is planning on listening to this lecture can be certain that they’re going to be entertained.  Dr. Hazen is not only informative but also an entertaining speaker.  During the lecture, he has multiple stories that are comical and really keep your attention while maintaining focused on the topic of the lecture.  Dr. Hazen is certainly a breath of fresh air in comparison to many other academics.

While the lecture was entertaining and comical, Dr. Hazen has a passion for Christ that is exemplified through his delivery and speech.  It shows that he loves Christ and that he has spent his entire life examining this subject matter in order to know Christ at a deeper level.  When he was reflecting on the solid evidence for Christianity, he said, “I can’t NOT believe in God”.  His certainty in the fact that Jesus Christ existed, died, and resurrected for our sins is without dispute.  However, he doesn’t do so on blind faith.  He gives the reasons for how Christians can know with certainty that Christianity is the right answer that makes the best sense out of the information that we have today.

In conclusion, I would encourage anyone to listen to this lecture from Dr. Hazen because he provides a perspective that is rather unique because he is speaking from a “world religions” perspective.  He has investigated religion thoroughly and has the qualifications necessary to make a reliable judgment on their historicity.  In addition, I'd like to make a note for those on a spiritual journey; this lecture is particularly aimed at you.  Personally, Dr. Hazen is the guy I would want to sit down and speak with if I was an individual searching for Christ.

"Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus" – Review

http://www.apologeticsguy.com/shop/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-jesus-christ-craig-hazen-mp3/

If you’ve never been presented with factual evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, this is an excellent introduction. Dr. Craig Hazen is one of the best Christian apologists when it comes to speaking to the average layperson. He speaks in a manner that anyone can understand and he does so in a humorous and informative manner. When listening to this lecture, I would venture to say that you’ll be both informed and entertained.

Dr. Hazen tells stories of his past experiences in dealing with secular students and how they react once presented with objective evidence of the resurrection hypothesis. He told a story about giving a lecture on the evidence for the resurrection of Christ to UCLA medical students that was hysterical. His delivery is impeccable. However, more importantly, he described how receptive these medical students were to hearing the evidentially based argument for the resurrection.

He uses a method of communicating the evidence for the resurrection called “the side door”, and he described it as taking accepted truths from the harshest critics of the resurrection and evidentially supporting the resurrection by using this information acquired by skeptics to combat their own skepticism. He did so by gathering twelve facts that are accepted by believer and non-believer alike and uses them to build the case for the resurrection. Below are the twelve facts:

1)     Jesus died by crucifixion

2)     Jesus was buried

3)     Jesus’ death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope under the belief that their leader was dead

4)     The tomb was discovered empty a few days later

5)     The disciples had experiences that are believed to be experiences  of Jesus alive

6)     The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify with Jesus to bold proclaimers of Jesus’ death and resurrection

7)     The resurrection message was the center of preaching in the early church

8)     This resurrection message was proclaimed in Jerusalem where Jesus died and was buried

9)     As a result of this preaching, the church was born and grew

10) Sunday became the primary day of worship

11) James, a skeptic, converted to Christianity

12) Paul, a skeptic and persecutor of Christianity, converted to Christianity

What theory best fits the cumulative data?  Dr. Hazen does an amazing job of communicating how the resurrection hypothesis is the best hypothesis that makes the most sense out of the 12 facts that are believed by a majority of all scholars. I would strongly encourage the purchase of this lecture to get a deeper look into what Dr. Hazen says regarding each of these points.

Dr. Hazen highlights why this topic is so important by having us view 1 Corinthians 15, “But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith”. Our faith is useless without the resurrection of Jesus.

I’d encourage anyone to purchase this lecture as it will be a valuable resource for those that want a deeper understanding of the resurrection of Christ. Of all the apologists that I know of, I can say that Dr. Hazen communicates the most effectively to those wanting to become familiarized with Christ at a lay level because of his comedic and comfortable style of communication and his abundant knowledge and love of God. To all who seek God shall find him. Let this lecture help you in your path to a greater understanding of our Lord.

Can Science Answer Everything?

In an age of growing scientism, we often find that many atheists won’t believe in something unless it can be scientifically confirmed. This should be called to attention because if things cannot be evidentially proven by science, doesn’t that mean God is out of the question?  Since there is no test that we can run or satellite we can send out to locate God, is the possibility of God impossible since it cannot be proven empirically by science that there is a God?  In addition to asking whether we should believe in God despite there not being 100% empirical evidence proving that God does exist, we should also inquire as to whether or not this is a wise way to approach any problem.  Should we solely rely upon the results of science in order for our senses to allow for potential theistic considerations?  These are many questions that should be looked at more closely and thoughtfully considered before placing too many of our eggs in the science basket. 

Please, don’t misunderstand me.  I love science.  It has validated the claims theists have been making for hundreds of years.  However, is it still rational to place stock in God despite science not being able to empirically prove there is an existent God?  And, are there things science is incapable of proving?  The answer to both of those questions is YES. 

In the above video, we see that Dr. William Lane Craig lists off five things science cannot prove but we are all rational to accept.  I’ve listed the five things science cannot prove and included an example:

1.      Logical and mathematical truths (science presupposes logic and math)

2.      Metaphysical truths (there are minds other than my own, the external world is real, the past wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age)

3.      Ethical beliefs about statements of value (Whether the Nazi scientists in Germany did anything evil as opposed to doing anything good)

4.      Aesthetic judgments (beautiful vs. ugly)

5.      Science cannot be justified by the scientific method¹

Notice that many people who make the claim that science is all there is and say that science is the only reliable vehicle for confirming anything about life often discredit the usage of philosophy.  You often hear prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, and Lawrence Krauss discount the importance of philosophy simply because they have anointed science with supreme kingship over all other methods of data retrieval and sincerely believe that science can prove everything.  In fact, they’ve gone so far as to declare that it isn’t a fact unless it can be scientifically proven. 

To look at only one example of how science fails to answer every single question we can look to the moral argument.  As said in the third objection posed by Dr. Craig, science cannot determine what is and is not moral.  As prominent atheist Sam Harris has successfully shown in his book, “The Moral Landscape”, you may only scientifically prove what helps organisms flourish and not how their morals are founded in a sense of objective moral right and wrong².   

In conclusion, scientism fails to view the entire picture.  In partaking in a worldview that only allows scientific findings, you are willingly removing yourself from important philosophical conclusions which may have theistic implications.  It is safe to say that God is still a rational conclusion despite the scientific evidence not showing that God is empirically true.  However, there are no absolutes in life.  The best we can do is to objectively view the evidence that we have accessible to us, scientific and non-scientific.  Needless to say, science has brought theists large amounts of credibility with the discovery of the big bang, recognition of the fine-tuning of the universe, identifying the complexity contained within our DNA, and our vast understanding of biology, geology, astronomy, and cosmology.  While science is a tool that has granted us insight into God, it shouldn’t be viewed as though it is the only method of insight and nor should it be treated as a monopoly on information as many atheists claim that it is.

Notes

1 William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins debate (April 1998 in Atlanta, GA)

2 William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate on “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” at Notre Dame University on April 2011

Misusing “Good”

In April 2011 at the University of Notre Dame, William Lane Craig and Sam Harris came together to debate the topic, “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?”.  Oddly enough, atheist Harris contends that there are objective moral values and duties in this universe and wrote his book, “The Moral Landscape”, to explain how objective moral values and duties can be explained from an atheist perspective¹.  This is odd because many atheists, like Richard Dawkins, often contend that there are no objective moral values because there isn’t a God in which to provide the foundation for their objectivity.  As Dawkins suggests, “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being”².  Among atheist scholars, Harris is a minority in his viewpoint that the atheistic worldview can ground objective moral values and duties. 

It needs to be identified that Harris’ reasoning for acknowledging “objective” morals in the atheist worldview is because he is using the word, “good”, in a non-moral sense.  Harris often refers to the moral quality of “good” as synonymous with the property of creaturely flourishing.  However, given that creaturely flourishing and moral “good” are separate, how is it that Harris contends that objective morals are still grounded?³  In the above video of the debate, Dr. Craig describes this objection in detail regarding creaturely flourishing not being identical to moral “good” as Harris suggests.

It seems that Harris believes that we have moral duties; however there isn’t any reason for anyone to think that we have moral duties under atheism because there isn’t a foundation set forth to construct those moral duties.  Moral obligations arise because of a competent authority.   Dr. Craig uses the example of getting pulled over by a police officer.  When a police officer turns on his sirens and requests that we pull to the side of the road, we are legally obligated to perform the duty of pulling our vehicle to the side of the road.  By contrast, if a pedestrian requested for us to pull to the side of the road, we have no legal obligation to perform the duty of pulling to the side of the road³.  The same analogy can be used for atheism.  Under atheism, there isn’t a competent authority to place any moral duties upon us while in theism there is.  That is what separates objective and subjective in this case on moral objectivity. 

During the debate, Craig made use of the Divine Command Theory (DCT).  DCT states that our moral duties are a result of the commands of a just and loving God⁴.  In which case, the DCT derives an “ought” from an “is” because God commanded that we ought to do something because it is commanded by God.  Many may ask, “why are we obligated simply because God commanded it?”, which goes back to moral duties being grounded in a the competent authority that was discussed earlier⁴.  Under an atheistic worldview, there is no ought because there isn’t a competent authority in which to ground “ought”. 

Craig mentions repeatedly that Harris was confusing moral ontology with moral semantics, which is the primary cause in Harris’ misuse of the word “good”.  Moral ontology addresses the foundation of moral values and duties while moral semantics addresses the meaning of the moral terms³.  Simply dealing with moral semantics will be able to differentiate the meanings between moral terms but will not be able to address how moral values and duties have an objective foundation.  When Harris uses “good” and “bad”, he often is referring to a pleasurable life and a miserable life, however these are not moral uses of the word. A pleasurable life of creaturely flourishing isn’t the same as being morally good³. 

Hence, Sam Harris falls short of explaining how objective morality exists in a world without God.  Giving examples of how creaturely flourishing is good fails to truly explain how morality is objective in an atheistic worldview.  While creaturely flourishing is a good thing, however, think of the consequences of identifying creaturely flourishing and moral good as the same.  To illustrate a hypothetical example, if it was shown that the greatest amount of human flourishing occurred when disabled individuals were removed from society by means of euthanasia, it would be morally irresponsible for us not to euthanize these individuals simply because more humans would flourish without them.  I don’t think anybody would agree that would be a moral thing to do.  Not even Dr. Harris.

Grounding “good” in the act of creaturely flourishing is simply an act of creative desperation on behalf of Sam Harris.  Harris’ use of the word “good” gives people the illusion that he is using it morally, but upon closer examination, we find that he isn’t.  He is faced with how we can derive an “ought” from an “is” without a foundation for the “ought”.  On atheism, there is no competent authority suggesting that we ought to be morally good.  As theists, whether we are right or wrong, we can hold to the position that if we are wrong we can acknowledge that morals are illusory and nothing more.  Misusing the term “good” does nothing more than skew the meaning of its reality. 

Notes

1 Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010),

2 Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden: a Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1996), p. 133 and Richard Dawkins, “The Ultraviolet Garden,” Lecture 4 of 7 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1992),

3 William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate on “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural?” at Notre Dame University on April 2011

4  William Lane Craig, Does Theistic Ethics Derive an “ought” from an “Is” from http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-theistic-ethics-derive-an-ought-from-an-is

The Multiverse Theory

So, have you ever thought that there could be an infinite amount of other universes in existence and we just happen to be the lucky universe that happened to have the winning combination of constants and quantities needed for habitable life?  While many of you likely haven’t, there are some who have and have made a theory out of it called, “The Multiverse Theory”.  The theory suggests that there is an infinite amount of universes in existence.  However, why would such a theory need to be theorized?  Are there signs of another observable universe?  The answer is no, there is no scientific evidence for other universes in existence.  The reason for this theory is likely because it serves as a solution to why the fine-tuning is present within our universe.   The key is that if there are an infinite number of universes, it would be perfectly rational to believe that one of those universes would be habitable for intelligible life.  Advocates of the multiverse theory find this theory to be incredibly useful because it accounts for why the universe came into existence from nothing by chance with the initial conditions being fine-tuned without design².                                                                                                                                                                                     
The prominent theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne commented on the multiverse theory:

“Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes. By construction, these other worlds are unknowable to us. A possible explanation of equal intellectual responsibility – and to my mind greater economy and elegance-would be that this one world is the way it is, because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so” ¹

Given Polkinhorne’s valid assessment of the multiverse theory, there are other objections posed against the multiverse theory.  For the sake of argument, suppose that the multiverse theory is true.  Is the mechanism that generates these universes considered to be a random accident void of fine-tuning?  If the advocates of the multiverse theory consider the multiverse to be fine-tuned, they find themselves in the same boat they were in when attempting to explain away the fine-tuning of our universe by positing a multiverse². 

In addition to the self-defeating nature of the multiverse itself, most theorists are skeptical of the multiverse theory.  It has been shown by the the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem that the universe (even a multiverse if it exists) had a beginning².  Given that the multiverse would have had a beginning if it existed, there would only be a finite amount of universes contained within this multiverse because the multiverse would be finite in nature.  Given that there would only be a finite number of universes within the multiverse, how are we to reasonably infer that this multiverse would have popped out a life-sustain universe by mere chance?²

Before I discuss the last objection, I’d like to give you a brief summary on the second law of thermodynamics in order to better understand it.  The second law of thermodynamics states that unless energy is being fed into a system (our universe in this case), that system will eventually become increasingly disorderedly².  What that means is that our universe’s energy will eventually be spread so far throughout the universe that no life will be possible and the universe will have an equal amount of energy throughout the entire universe until it reaches maximum entropy.  Entropy represents the unavailability of the universe’s thermodynamic energy left within it.  For example, high-entropy would indicate that there is a lower amount of energy left in the universe while low-entropy would indicate that there is a greater amount of energy left in the universe.  As the energy spreads throughout the universe, the ultimate result of the second law of thermodynamics is called, “the heat death”, due to maximum entropy². 

The third objection is expressed firmly by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose who calculates that the odds of our universe’s initial low-entropy (high amounts of energy) conditions by mere chance is one out of 10^{10 (123)3}.  In addition, the odds of our solar system forming by a collision of random particles is one out of 10^10(60)3.  Given these statistics, it would be much easier to comprehend an orderly universe the size of our solar system rather than the immense universe that is finely tuned for life such as the one we currently reside in and observe². 

In conclusion, there are many reasons to think the multiverse isn’t a viable option.  While it is viable for atheists in search of an explanation for why the constants and quantities of the universe are so immaculately fine-tuned by chance, it is plagued with flaws that it can’t be reconciled scientifically.  However, these types of theories that attempt to explain away the fine-tuning are really complimenting theism in an underhanded way.  The fine-tuning  of the universe is so incomprehensively great that it is acknowledged that mere chance isn’t a rational explanation.    

On a personal note, I included the video below because it hilariously illustrates the absurdity of the multiverse theory. 

Notes

1 John Polkinghorne, One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology (London; SPCK) Page 80

2 William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 5

3 Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005) 762-5.

Is Atheism a Faith?

I’ve had dialogue with many atheists over the years and most of them label their disbelief in God as a stance rather than a belief.  Surprisingly, this same stance is taken by prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, Michael Shermer, and Christopher Hitchens. They claim that their atheistic stance carries no faith along with it.  I’ve even been told that atheism isn’t a worldview.  Many atheists simply chalk up their non-belief in God as a certainty not up for debate.  This certainty is because they believe that all the scientific evidence is in their favor while also believing that theists have nothing but blind faith in the face of all evidence to the contrary.  However, are they justified in thinking that atheism isn’t a belief system? 

Below, I’ve listed three different definitions from respected sources:

Oxford Dictionary:
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods¹

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Atheism: The negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God²

Encyclopedia Britannica:
Atheism: The critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings³

 Given the three definitions I’ve listed, it is accurate to say that an atheist denies the existence of God.  However, to deny God’s existence would logically follow that an atheist believes there is no God.    In the above video, Dr. William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens discuss the topic of atheism vs. agnosticism vs. verificationism.  Hitchens makes the statement, “there is no claim that I know how to make that says, “atheism is true” because atheism is the statement that a certain proposition isn’t true” but then Hitchens states a couple seconds later that atheism “is not in itself a belief or a system”.  The late Hitchens, one of the four horsemen of the new atheism movement, states that atheism isn’t a belief system however he cannot provide substantive evidence to support his atheistic claim during his exchange with Dr. Craig.

 Atheism is a belief system despite what the atheists might believe.  Hitchens makes an extremely valid and revealing point, if he cannot justify the claim that “atheism is true”, wouldn’t that infer that there must be faith involved in being an atheist?  Maybe this confidence in the claim that there is no God is being propagated by the atheistic worldview.  That’s to say, interpreting all knowledge and data that is personally gathered through an atheist filter so that all considerations that include God sound completely absurd.  The atheist finds the universe to be a closed system that is void of a transcendent Creator while the theist values the Genesis 1:1 account and appreciates the universe through the paradigm of God while observing Him in His creation⁴.  Both worldviews generally result in an interpretation of science that reflects their worldview, however both cannot be true. 

 In conclusion, we find that the facts more plausibly reinforce the theists’ worldview.  We find atheistic scientists jumping through hoops in an attempt to justify how our universe came into being ex nihilo by saying that the universe came from nothing, the universe created itself, the multiverse theory, and many others.  In addition, people have gone great lengths to disprove the historicity of Jesus by coming up with absurd conspiracy theories that don’t have enough plausibility, explanatory power, or explanatory scope to outweigh the resurrection hypothesis.  The fact is, it is perfectly reasonable to place your faith and trust in God given the evidence at hand.  That is what makes atheism a faith rather than a fact.

Notes

1 Definition of Atheism (Oxford Dictionaries). http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

2 Atheism and agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1

3 Atheism (Encyclopedia Britannica). http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/40634/atheism

4 John Lennox, God’s Undertaker – Has Science Buried God? (Oxford, England: Lion Hudson plc) Chapter 1

The Redefinition of Nothing

Believe or not, many atheists are contending that it was possible that the universe came into existence out of nothing.  One reason for this contention could be because of the influence of Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Arizona State Universe and the author of, “A Universe from Nothing”.  Dr. Krauss has made this view very popular in recent years.  In addition to his scholarly credentials, Dr. Krauss is also an outspoken atheist.  His view of the universe coming into existence out of nothing bodes conveniently well with his atheistic worldview because he seemingly removes the need for a Creator.  However, one may wonder how someone such as Dr. Krauss can come up with such a radical conclusion.  The answer is in the new definition of “nothing”.    

In the debate between Dr. Krauss and Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Krauss made this remark about the origin of the universe, “But it (the universe) can come into being out of nothingness because nothing is unstable”¹.  When Dr. Krauss refers to “nothing” he is referring to the quantum vacuum.  The quantum vacuum is what Dr. Craig describes as, “empty space filled with vacuum energy. It is a rich, physical reality described by physical laws and having a physical structure”¹.  So, if “nothing” isn’t really nothing, why is Dr. Krauss using it as such?  It is terribly confusing to those who don’t understand the terminology of physics.  As Dr. Craig described the way Dr. Krauss uses the term “nothing”, “This is the grossly misleading use of “nothingness””¹. 

Above is a video of Dr. Craig describing this inappropriate use of the term “nothing”.  Many atheists that have adopted this theory seem to be confused as to how “nothing” should properly be used in a sentence, which is likely due to Dr. Krauss’ propagation of the incorrect usage. 

Ultimately, why is this misusage of terminology such a big deal?  It is a big deal because people are becoming convinced that the universe popped into being uncaused.  Dr. Krauss labeling “nothing” as the quantum vacuum is incorrect.  The quantum vacuum is something, and something has a beginning, which is therefore caused.  In 2003, a theorem called the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem was developed by three leading cosmologists that supported the claim that the universe is finite and not eternal.  Prominent cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin said,

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”³

If Dr. Krauss is implying that the quantum vacuum has always been in existence and subsequently popped out a universe, there is evidence to show that the universe had a beginning and is not the product of an eternal quantum vacuum.  As Christians, we hold that the universe was created ex nihilo, which means that God created the universe without a material cause.  However, I’d like to clarify that the universe didn’t come into being by nothing because God is the cause for all matter and energy².

In conclusion, it seems that “nothing” has replaced “something” in Dr. Krauss’ dictionary. However, the reality is that “nothing” means “not anything”.  Since the quantum vacuum is something, it doesn’t meet the definition of “nothing”.  Therefore, I feel it is important to reiterate the significance terminology holds in the grand scheme of things because it ultimately affects the meaning of what is being communicated. What Dr. Krauss is doing is simply irresponsible scholastics and Christians should be prepared to give an intelligible response to the new “nothing”. 

Notes

1 William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss debate (March 30, 2011 at North Carolina State University)

2 William Lane Craig, Must the Universe have a Material Cause? (Reasonablfaith.com)

3 Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill & Wang, 2006), p. 176.