I saw most of this the other day: Star Talk hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, talking to a Jesuit priest and playing sections from a taped interview he did with Richard Dawkins. (There was also a comedian but he didn’t get to contribute much.) It was pretty entertaining.
One bit was very funny, when Dawkins was explaining something about why he challenges religion or some such thing, and he said he “good-naturedly ridicules” people’s odd beliefs. I burst out laughing at that, and laughed some more when Tyson gently said the people might disagree about the “good-natured” part. Dawkins chuckled amiably, but…you could see that no dent had been made.
So I guess that really is how he sees himself? As good-naturedly ridiculing people’s beliefs, as opposed to waspishly or sharply or harshly or brutally?
The Jesuit priest was predictably frustrating. He pretended to be perfectly reasonable and like a scientist and trying to figure things out just like Tyson and yadda yadda. He said he likes to ask people why there’s something rather than nothing, and Tyson said he answers he doesn’t know, and he’s happy with that – later amended to not happy in the sense of not wanting to try to find out, but in the sense of not letting it force him to answer “god.”
I liked that, but I also wished he had pressed the Jesuit – James Martin, his name is – on why “god” is any kind of answer to that question anyway. I also wished he had pressed him to say exactly what he meant by god, especially when he (Mr Jesuit) kept offering different versions of god, all of them much nicer than the fascist daddy-figure. I wished he had asked how any of that makes sense together.
Odd. I think we do know the answer to that question. It’s far beyond me, but (I’m told,) it can be shown mathematically that “nothing” is not viable. “Something” is the default.
As I commented just today on Pharyngula, this state of affairs is counterintuitive, so we postulate Prime Movers and creator gods. It seems to us that Nothing must be the default and Something had to come from Somewhere. But we’re wrong. There’s always been Something. Even before the Big Bang, there were quantum energy fields.
Or so I’ve gathered. Mainly from Sean Carroll. If I have it bolloxed up I’m sure someone will tell me.
You know, I do agree that Dawkins may not be perceived as good-natured and rightfully so, but…in my experience, the gentlest of criticisms, even the admission (to their question) that you do not believe in god(s), is perceived as “bashing”, “grumpy”, “unreasonable”, etc. So Tyson’s comment could probably be made to any individual who is openly non-theistic.
“I also wished he had pressed him to say exactly what he meant by god, especially when he (Mr Jesuit) kept offering different versions..”
Yes, that’s the usual two-way bet, first the argument is presented on vaguely deist principles, then there’s a quick glissade towards the “fascist daddy-figure” God, who given the problem of theodicy, always seemed to me to be either a complete bastard, or incompetent. It’s understandable of course, the deist God doesn’t need earthly representatives.
I was educated at a Presbyterian Grammar School (High School) and I can remember an incident during Scripture class when the subject of the creation of the universe was discussed. The minister presented the party line that God created the universe, then of course, some smart-arse asked the obvious question, “Well, who created God?’
Why not an eternal uncreated universe?
“God” won’t be an acceptable answer to any question about the universe until there is a well-established field of Experimental Theology doing actual work in the field and the lab.
“…he likes to ask people why there’s something rather than nothing…”
Since theists like to argue towards their god(s) by extrapolating from the known universe to the unknown supernatural, for all its popularity this is a rather peculiar question to say the least.
Our experience of the universe is that there is always something, never nothing. Why should outside or before the universe, if those concepts make sense, be any different? And how does the theist concept of nothing still manage to include an god? If Lawrence Krauss is deemed by theists to have cheated by theists for including quantum fluctuations in his notion of nothingness, an all-powerful god also looks like cheating.
I agree with Kiwi Dave:
The “weak” anthropic principle accounts for it.
The question itself is something, so when the question exists (which it does), existence must also exist. 😉
The cosmological strategy is feeble in any case — an obvious problem being the unwarranted leap from the supposed necessary ‘ground of all being’ to the Abrahamic tantrum-prone deity Christians worship.
Lady Mondegreen @1,
Theory, being empirical, is modelled on (and must account for) observations, and so that its mathematical analysis yields a posteriori probability of necessary existence is 1 when it is mathematically analysed is not remarkable — it would be a worry if it didn’t!
Why is there god, rather than no god?
david, what’s a god?
(Other than non-empirical, obviously)
Assuming there is a God, why is there a God instead of nobody? And why is there this God instead of an other?
Up until five or six years ago I would have agreed that Dawkins’ criticism of belief was generally good- natured, except when dealing with the more egregious religious bullies. Even when he was a bit snappish I reasoned that he had just been asked the same dumb question he had answered hundreds of times before.
Since he discovered Twitter however… Oh dear.
Quite. They touched on that repeatedly – and the priest of course was invariably devious about it. At one point Tyson said something like “Yes but what about all the rules and demands?” and the priest just said briskly “All that comes later” and then answered a different question. That was one more place where I wish Tyson had pinned him down firmly.
I wish Tyson had asked him: “If this god is so easily defined in all these different ways you keep mentioning, then how can it be a reliable source for the rules and demands?”
Unfortunately the link to the episode requires a login so I haven’t seen the episode.
.
” He said he likes to ask people why there’s something rather than nothing, and Tyson said he answers he doesn’t know…”
.
This sounds like NDT being diplomatic. Depending on what mood I’m in I would be much less diplomatic.
.
This question is a perfect example of a ‘gotcha’ loaded question. It sounds a bit more philosophical than “Have you stopped beating your wife?” but it is only a bit better than, “And hast thou slain the jabberwock?” to qualify as a legitimate question. And it’s used in such a way that, “if you can’t answer it then there’s something wrong with your worldview.”
.
The very first word, “Why” sets up the framing that the questioner (usually a theist) desires. It manages to do this while still being ambiguous as to ‘why’ as in “what caused it?” or ‘why’ as in “who wanted it that way?” As though either meaning is legitimate in this context.
.
And don’t get me started on ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ being a false dichotomy. The question is dishonest from the ground up.
.
Lady Mondegreen @ #1
.
“As I commented just today on Pharyngula, this state of affairs is counterintuitive, so we postulate Prime Movers and creator gods. It seems to us that Nothing must be the default and Something had to come from Somewhere. But we’re wrong. There’s always been Something. Even before the Big Bang, there were quantum energy fields.”
.
Well, of course we have to fill in all of this stuff in order to answer the question. It’s not a legitimate question.
.
A work colleague once said to me, “There are no innocent questions.” I’m not sure about that. But WITSRTN sure isn’t one.
Oh, I don’t know, Martin. I think it’s a good question, in itself–
–but when asked by a theist, usually, no. Then it’s a leading question. Even if we needed a Prime or Unmoved Mover (we don’t) you can’t get from there to your particular rules-giving god, so, yeah. Cheating.
I’m talking (in my garbled way) about the–theory?–observation?–that “nothing” is inherently unstable. (“Nothing” being quantum fluctuations, which I’m calling “something.” Because, that’s why.)
But you’re talking about our universe — the one in which we exist — and spacetime is not nothing.
The Digital Cuttlefish had a post about this:
“When philosophers talk about “nothing”
Why, their nothing has nothing at all
No time, and no space, and no matter,
Not even the quantumly small
[…]”
That’s my point–that the “nothing” of the philosophers doesn’t exist.
I’m also saying that I think I understand why they ask the question. It seems to me that our human bias is to assume “nothing” as the default. At least, mine is. But physics tells us “nothing” could never last. The way I conceptualize it (as the math is far beyond me) is to reprogram myself to recognize “Something” as the default. Hope that makes sense.
Thanks for the link to the Cuttlefish.
My favourite reply to this question was by the great philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser:
‘Pfft, even if there was nothing you wouldn’t be happy!’
@ rietpluim #11
Does there need to be a god or a nobody?
.
I had this conversation with a theist once who said in reponse to my being agnostic, “well if god didn’t create the universe, who did?” I responded with what I have now heard on The Atheist Experience a thousand times, “does it have to be a ‘who’?”
.
That totally dumbfounded him. He had accepted the idea of an intelligent being creating the universe for so long with such drive that it never even occurred to him that maybe the universe does not require a creator/prime mover. I don’t think it shattered his faith but it did get him thinking. (Mind you, he had considered the possibility of most of Genesis being a parable but still did not agree with evolution, but he made no distinction between evolution, abiogenesis, or even Planck time. His knowledge of science was so diminished he thought the Big Bang, evolution, and abiogenesis were all one and the same).