Download Hawking`s Principle of Ignorance and the Existence of God Glenn

Hawking’s Principle of Ignorance and the Existence of God
Glenn Statile
INTRODUCTION
Stephen Hawking has likened the singularity of the Big Bang to a limitation on
our knowledge. Moreover, such a limitation exceeds even that imposed by the
Uncertainty principle of Heisenberg.1 According to the Hawking-Penrose singularity
theorems, the past of every space-time path can be shown to intersect at some point or
singularity, infinitely dense and physically real, which can be regarded as marking the
onset of time. According to Quentin Smith, such initial Cosmological Uncertainty is
at odds with the view that the standard model of the Big Bang Theory is compatible
with the existence of a Creator God.2 If the origin of the Universe is shrouded in such
a principle of invincible ignorance, then this might seem to be more damaging to the
legitimacy of Cosmological type arguments for the existence of God than any mere
superficial correspondence between the Big Bang and the Book of Genesis might
otherwise imply. My thesis is both that:
1.
Such physical and epistemological ammunition against the
cosmological compatibility of the standard Big Bang model and
Creationism needs to be taken seriously.
2.
Despite Hawking’s Principle of Ignorance, the compatibility of Big
Bang theory and Creationism can be maintained.
ATHEISTIC IMPLICATIONS OF HAWKING’S PRINCIPLE OF IGNORANCE
At the very end of A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking refers to what
would amount to the “ultimate triumph of human reason”; namely, that of coming to
“know the mind of God.”3 But if God is responsible for the Principle of Ignorance
posited by Hawking, then it is debatable as to how it would be possible, even for God,
to predict the future course of the universe from such uncertain beginnings. The
Principle of Ignorance is defined as follows:
Principle of Ignorance df – The predictability of cosmic evolution is restricted due to
the breakdown in physical theory occurring at the Big
Bang singularity.4
It is interesting to note that a philosophical scrutiny of cosmological origins
will brush up against the same conceptual antinomies dealt with by Kant in his First
Critique. Contemporary cosmology is at center stage in the attempt to rehabilitate
both Cosmological and Teleological arguments for the existence of God, the latter in
the form of the so-called Anthropic Principle. But other antinomial issues are also
brought into play within modern cosmological debate.
Is the universe finite or infinite in size? Is the universe eternal, or did it have a
beginning? Are point-particles the building blocks of material reality, or did the
laboratory that was the early universe utilize filamentary structures such as Super
Strings in its constructive activity? Does Hawking’s Principle of Ignorance and its
association with unpredictability causally disconnect the Big Bang singularity from
later stages in the evolution of the Universe, so that the universe can in some sense be
said to be free? Given the possibility of grasping the truth about the physical origins
of the universe, it seems that Kant may have been premature in his view that
skepticism is the result of our looking for answers in the wrong place. Kant’s
cognitive Copernicanism, in making the external world conform to our conceptual
2
categories, can also be interpreted as resulting from the incompleteness of Newtonian
cosmology. Big Bang cosmology enables us to push the horizon of legitimate spatiotemporal considerations beyond the threshold of the knowledge that was available to
Kant. Therefore, the Copernican turn might need to be postponed. The truth about
space and time might lie not in ourselves, but in that tale told by the light that comes
from distant stars.
But does the extended horizon of modern scientific knowledge undermine
Kant’s interpretation of the antinomies? Kant’s antinomial view in regard to the
existence of a necessary Being seems to have remained viable despite the recent
rapport between Creationism and cosmology. While the existence of the singularity
can be viewed as consistent with belief in the existence of a Creator God, its essential
unpredictability has implications that oppose just such a belief. Let us identify two
atheistic implications.
1. Divine Intervention
The chaotic character of the singularity, with its
unpredictable influence on the future course of cosmic
evolution, is difficult to reconcile with the lawlike and
life supporting order one might expect to result from the
creative activity of God. Such creative chaos is
problematic, as it suggests a need for Divine
intervention.
2. Divine Foreknowledge
God’s knowledge of the future course of the universe is
constrained by the limitations on Divine craftsmanship
imposed by the Principle of Ignorance.
In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume revisited the
classical skeptical argument against the existence of god posed by the reality of evil in
the world. Omnipotence and benevolence are both necessary attributes of Divine
Being, but the existence of evil in the world, so it is argued, prevents both from
coexisting simultaneously as part of the Divine nature. Hence, God does not exist.
The argument from evil is thus considered important because it does more than
undertake the merely negative task of finding flaws in arguments that purport to prove
the existence of God. It positively attempts to disprove God’s existence via a
consideration of the incompatibility between the Divine essence and some worldly, or
cosmological, essence.
Hawking’s Principle of Ignorance likewise leads to positive atheistic
implications for Big Bang Cosmology. Such implications are seemingly in conflict
with the view that Big Bang Cosmology is compatible with a Creationist perspective.
These implications must be taken seriously, and be overcome, if confidence in
Cosmological/Creationist compatibilism is not to be undermined. As with the
argument from evil the attempt to use Hawking’s Principle of Ignorance to shed doubt
upon the existence of God results from an apparent conflict between Divine and
cosmological essence. There is surely something rationally unsettling in knowing that
the omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God, who presumably intends to include
life in the tapestry of creation, is responsible for creating the conditions that will
require his future intervention in the course of unanticipated cosmic events. And as
the argument from evil led in time to a transformation in the Christian doctrine
regarding the essence of evil; likewise, the Principle of Ignorance dictates a similar
transformation in our understanding of the nature of the singularity in order to restore
confidence in the compatibility between Big Bang cosmology and Creationism.
3
THE PROBLEM OF DIVINE INTERVENTION
It can be argued that the emergence of life is evidence in favor of the existence
of God.5 If the conditions of the singularity that led Hawking to postulate his
Principle of Ignorance were hostile to the possibility of life, then some activity akin to
Divine intervention in the course of cosmic affairs must be introduced to account for
the origins of life. Quentin Smith summarily dismisses such a view.6 Such a view, he
claims, is mistaken since it requires God to have been incompetent in his original
design. If Divine incompetence is unacceptable, then God didn’t create the singularity.
Therefore, the emergence of life, although highly improbable, must be entirely due to
natural causes. Hence, God does not exist.
But surely such reasoning is flawed as it suggests that the specification of what
is competent and what is not is unproblematic. From Thomistic ethics, we know that
it is often difficult to disentangle an act from its intention. And in order to assess the
competence of any act it is a prerequisite that we be able to define it. William LaneCraig suggests that it is wrong to view Divine intervention as a corrective measure
taken to remedy defects within an incompetently designed universe.7 For such an
interpretation adopts a deistic attitude which stipulates by fiat that miracles cannot
occur. Why must it be the case that creation constitutes a finite act, as opposed to an
intentional process involving both continuous conservation and occasional
intervention? Thus, the Principle of Ignorance does not oppose Creationism on the
basis of any incompatibility between Divine intervention and competence.
THE PROBLEM OF DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE
Related to the problem of Divine intervention is that of Divine foreknowledge.
If anything, the latter poses a bigger problem for the view that the compatibility
between Big Bang theory and Creationism can be maintained. For any difficulties in
reconciling the Principle of Ignorance with Divine intervention can be attributed to
our failure to fully understand the Master Plan, in much the same way as we
theologically acknowledge that the existence of evil in the world is neither due to God
nor inconsistent with the Master Plan. But whereas the problem of Divine
intervention involves both ethical and aesthetic considerations, the problem posed in
regard to Divine foreknowledge is strictly logical.
Simply put, God is incapable of creating initial conditions that he doesn’t fully
understand, which in turn would prevent him from being able to accurately foresee all
future conditions. Therefore, if the Principle of Ignorance does prevent God from
knowing the history of cosmic evolution in advance, then God didn’t create the
singularity. And while this doesn’t imply that God doesn’t exist, it does strike quite a
blow against the conviction that he does. On the other hand, if we maintain that God
is responsible for the Big Bang, then it is the Principle of Ignorance that must be
wrong. Smith’s powerfully argued cosmological atheism is based upon the view that
the correctness of the Principle of Ignorance is evidence against the existence of God.
If (Principle of Ignorance) _ (Creationist God doesn’t exist)
From this it follows that if God exists, and he created the singularity, then the
Principle of Ignorance is false.
BEYOND IGNORANCE: THE ADVENT OF SUPERSTRING THEORY
William Lane-Craig attempts to overcome the problem of Divine
foreknowledge by adapting the scientia media of Luis de Molina, from a doctrine
which endeavors to square Divine foreknowledge with human freedom, to one in
which such foreknowledge is consistently linked to the cosmic freedom, or
indeterminacy, that ensues from Hawkings’s Principle of Ignorance.8 But we can
avoid the embarrassment of holding God responsible for creating the chaotic initial
conditions of the universe in the first place, if we can somehow overcome the
4
breakdown in physical theory that occurs prior to the Planck time – (10¯43 seconds).
This breakdown is due to the fundamental incompatibility between General Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics. This incompatibility becomes significant when the size of
the universe is less than the Planck length (10¯33 centimeters).
At subPlanck length distances, the mass-energy of the universe is compressed
into an extremely small volume of space. This means that the domains of General
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics overlap.9 The uniform spatial geometry which
characterizes the curvature of space as gravity in the theory of General Relativity is
fractured by the quantum fluctuations and irregularities that pervade the quantum
containment field that is the very early universe. Thus the two foundational theories
of 20th century physics, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, do not mesh
well. This leads to the Principle of Ignorance which Super-String Theory is designed
to overcome.
The Reconstruction of Physical Theory
Ed Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton once referred to
String Theory as a 21st century theory that fell by chance into the 20th century. The
term Super in Super-String refers to the coupling of the older String theory with the
principle of super symmetry, which coordinates the properties of bosons and
ferminons. Strings are loop-like structures that can produce vibrating patterns which
resonate at various frequencies to produce bosons and fermions, or the messenger
particles which carry force and the particles of ordinary matter respectively. By
replacing point particles as the building blocks of the universe, strings resolve the
aforementioned subPlanck incompatibility between General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics. Since the length of the typical string is 10¯__ cent., the singularity
conditions responsible for the Principle of Ignorance are altogether eliminated. This
in turn builds confidence in the compatibility between fides and scientia in regard to
the origin of the universe. If the universe has a beginning whose character does not
conflict with what one would expect from the handiwork of God, then as Hawking
himself admits: “we could suppose it had a creator.”10 The words of our Holy Father,
John Paul II, punctuate this honest concession most appropriately.
Any scientific hypothesis on the origin of the world, such as
that of a primeval atom from which the whole of the physical world
derived, leaves open the problem concerning the beginning of the
universe. Science cannot by itself resolve such a question: what is
needed is that human knowledge that rises above physics and
astrophysics and which is called metaphysics; it needs above all the
knowledge that comes from the revelation of God.11
1
Stephen Hawking, “Breakdown in Predictability in Gravitational Collapse,” Physical Review, D14
(1976), p. 2460.
2
Quentin Smith and William Lane-Craig, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1993), see especially chapters 7 (Smith) and 8 (Lane-Craig), pp. 195-231.
3
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, (New York:
Bantam, 1988), p. 175.
4
John Boslough, Stephen Hawking’s Universe (New York: William Morrow, 1985) is worth
consulting here. It should be noted that it is not my intention to freeze Hawking’s cosmological
commitments, as if he were not himself involved in the ongoing search for a unified theory that would
heal the breach in physical theory represented by the Principle of Ignorance.
5
5
John Leslie, “Modern Cosmology and the Creation of Life,” in Evolution and Creation, ed., by Ernan
McMullin (South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985). Also John Leslie, “Anthropic
Principle, World Ensemble, Design,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 19 (1982), pp. 141-151.
6
Smith and Lane-Craig, op. Cit., pp. 202-206.
7
Smith and Lane-Craig, ibid., pp. 227-230.
8
See William Lane-Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (New York: Harper and Row, 1979;
William Lane-Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990); William
Lane-Craig, The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from Aristotle to Suarez
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988).
9
Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest of the
Ultimate Theory, (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999).
10
11
Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp. 140-141.
Denys Wilkinson, Our Universes, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), Quoted on pp. 188189.