It is increasingly difficult for me to avoid a harsh conclusion regarding some scientists and their discussions of the cosmos bringing itself into existence from "nothing". That conclusion would be either (1) the scientists in question are philosophically incompetent or (2) they're dishonest, or (3) some combination of the two. Clearly, they don't mean by "nothing" what most people mean--the absence of any reality altogether.
I think the first of the three is overwhelmingly the problem. If you don't know how to do something in the first place, what you do may turn to at least look dishonest.
The piece by Carroll that is linked to looks very interesting, starting off as it does by discussing the adage "from nothing, nothing comes." I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but the topic is one I have lately been pondering. The Christian notion of creation ex nihilo — which I am reasonably familiar with; I am unqualified to speak for other faiths — as I understand it is not that something ever came from nothing, but more precisely that God evokes everything out of nothing (only the present tense works when speaking of God).
Well, actually, the theologians are as ignorant of what the theoretical physicists, say, mean by "nothing," as are the reverse. Having studied both physics and theology, I don't think it's a lack of philosophical rigor, I think it's a lack of clarity about defining the terms being used. Which both sides are equally guilty of.
ReplyDeleteHi Art:
ReplyDeleteI reviewed Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and I can assure you that Dawkins at least borders on the philosophically illiterate, and Hawking is no better informed on the subject than Dawkins. Now Heisenberg was different. His Physics and Philosophy is still worth reading. Likewise, John Polkinghorne certainly knows both his theology and his physics. The notion of "nothing" that I have seen lately touted by certain physicists (and I have a bit of training in that subject myself) seems to me to amount (conceptually) to less than nothing. I have just been reading Rudolf Otto's Naturalism and Religion and I am astounded at how wide and deep Otto's scientific knowledge was.