On the Vastness of the Universe
| August 30, 2010 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
Nevada is mostly empty; I mean really empty. Ninety percent of the state’s residents live in the vicinity of Las Vegas or Reno, and the rest of the state is all but uninhabited. I realized just how empty the state is when I was riding my motorcycle across the desert last month, and I passed a sign that said “Next Gas 167 Miles.” They weren’t kidding. My bike’s range is only a little over 200 miles, and if I hadn’t stopped to top off my tank, I would have run out of gas in the middle of the desert.
This is the kind of riding I love the best. Riding hour after hour through a vast emptiness, alone with my thoughts, the wind in my face, and the deep-throated throb of my engine in my ears, fills me with a peace and joy that is difficult to describe. One day my two friends and I decided to just keep on riding after the sun went down, and at about 11:00 we stopped in the middle of the desert and turned off our motorcycles. There was no moon that night and the wind had died down. No other vehicles were on the highway, so we were alone in the quiet darkness, the only sound the pinging noises made by our engines as they cooled in the night air.
Hundreds of miles from the lights of the nearest city, the night sky was stunning. The Milky Way was clearly visible from one horizon to the other. Antares glowed like a tiny ruby in the heart of Scorpio. My friends and I just stood there, gaping in awed silence at the numberless points of twinkling light in the celestial sphere. Then John said, “I wonder why God made the universe so big.”
John’s comment got me to thinking. Why is the universe so big, with billons of galaxies and with each galaxy containing billions of stars, there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand in all the beaches of the world.
The vast size of the universe along with the earth’s comparative insignificance have often been used as an argument against the Christian view of God. The argument goes something like this: When our poor benighted ancestors thought we lived in a cozy little universe that revolved around the earth at its center, the Christian view of God might have made sense. But now we know better. We have the Copernican Principle (or the “Principle of Mediocrity”), which tells us that the universe is not cozy, and the earth is not at its center. The universe is larger than we can possibly understand, and, cosmically speaking, the earth is an insignificant speck of dust orbiting a slightly less insignificant speck of dust in one galaxy out of billons. Surely God would not create such a vast universe to support only life on earth; now that would be a waste of a truly cosmic proportions.
As it turns out, there are good reasons to doubt every premise of this argument.
1. The Ancients Were Not Stupid.
Let’s deal with the first assertion, that the ancients believed we live in a small universe. Consider Psalm 8: “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?” The psalmist looked at the multitude of stars in the night sky and realized that he was tiny and insignificant in a vast universe. It is truly a conceit of the modern age that the ancients naively believed they lived in a small and cozy universe in which the earth and man figured significantly, and that only now with our telescopes and other instruments of science do we understand the vastness of the universe and our relative insignificance.
Consider also Ptolemy’s Almagest, which was written in the early 100’s AD. It was the standard text on astronomy for over a thousand years. In chapter 5 of book I of the Almagest, Ptolemy writes: “The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.” So it turns out that the ancients were not as naive about the size of the universe as modern skeptics would have us believe.
2. The Earth is Almost Certainly a Very Special Place
No one supposes that the Earth is at the exact geometric center of the universe anymore. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe that it is a very special place, perhaps even unique. In recent years astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez has led the way in demonstrating that the existence of life is far from likely. In fact, it is exceedingly improbable and the conditions of the Milky Way galaxy, the sun, the solar system, the moon and the earth itself are remarkably fine-tuned for the existence of life.
According to Gonzalez, “The claims by many Copernican Principle advocates over the centuries, that life is commonplace on other celestial bodies, has been a spectacular failure. . . . Since it is Earth’s ability to support life that many take to be its most important quality, it is clear that this is a major failure of the metaphysical version of the Copernican Principle if the actual conditions which support life are so rare that they may only exist for Earth.”
3. The Universe is Exactly the Right Size
Finally, it turns out that the universe is not “too big” after all. In fact, it is exactly the size it must be in order to support life. Rich Deem summarizes just a few of the “just right” parameters which make the universe ideal for the existence of life:
It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
101 Responses to On the Vastness of the Universe
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Thus the obvious question, whence the law of gravity? What are these people THINKING? This is insane on the face of it.
“Because gravity exists” somehow implies that something can create itself? The very idea is incoherent whether gravity exists or not. Since nothing can be created by nothing, something would have to first exist in order to create anything. The irrationality of that claim is stupendous. That Hawking or the author of this article couldn’t see that in an INSTANT is depressing. That people will jump in and argue against the rebuttals to Hawking in this space is almost beyond belief. But there it is, the evidence will be here before morning, I’m sure. One of us (not me) will find ourselves arguing with an allegedly sentient and reasoning human being that something cannot create itself. And if the reply is “well, gravity is something” then the question has only been begged once again. Whence gravity? And everything else?
“And if the reply is “well, gravity is something” then the question has only been begged once again. Whence gravity? And everything else?”
One cannot even concieve “nothing” To talk about “nothing” one always resorts to talking about something in order to assert that “nothing” caused this or that. I mean the concept is so absurd and incoherent it gives ones mind a charlie horse.
Take Hawkings he must first assert something, the laws of phsyics,to assert that nothing created the universe. Are these people nuts?? Well I guess if one embraces irrationality we can conclude that they indeed have lost their minds?
Opps I forgot there are no minds soooo0….. nevermind!
Vivid
Well that would be gravity of course! Don’t you see?
Although… it seems a bit odd for there to be a law hanging out in a condition of absolute nothingness…a law about what, if nothing existed? A potential law? A law that would be in effect if something should ever exist?
It sounds so…planned.
“A potential law? A law that would be in effect if something should ever exist?”
Which leads to the question: What if the law existed prior to anything else, and then nothing decided to exist?
Hawking says “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing,”
But prior to this, he states: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
So he requires the law of gravity for spontaneous creation. Then this spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing – including gravity, I presume. So gravity is the reason for spontaneous creation, and spontaneous creation is the reason for gravity. Cause and effect all rolled into one.
New term for the “Big Bang:” The “Hawking Happening” or the “Hawkening” for short.
Maybe it’s his cosmological constant; a hypothesis for which he’s begging for a refutation. The problem is there won’t be a scientific refutation forthcoming, because it isn’t a scientific hypothesis.
F/N re Hawking
CY, BA, Vivid et al:
First, let us note the inspiring example of a man who has fought a terrible disease for decades, and prevails in his work despite such odds.
That said, you are right that he is moving from a domain of acknowledged expertise (Physics) to one of probably unrecognised want of expertise (Philosophy), and in the context that tempts physicists into such errors, cosmology. A pity really.
Things are bad when it is New Scientist that corrects a champion of materialism in a review. Here is Craig Callender:
Of course, I have brought out a bit on the understatements used by NS.
And, all of this comes back full circle to the issue in the original post: what are the lurking premises (and where are the points of misinformation and chronological snobbery . . . ) in cosmological arguments.
GEM of TKI
PS: Vivid, BA and CY, good work.
Does Hawking believe that there are infinite multiverses? If so, then my previous point applies to his reasoning as well.
Collin,
While the article doesn’t state directly that Hawking believes in the multiverse hypothesis, I think it’s clear that with his current metaphysical commitment, this is really the only option. But Hawking is a thinker of Einsteinian caliber. Perhaps he might come up with some new unconventional thought once he discovers (or rather acknowledges) the incoherence of his current thinking. This is why I mentioned in an earlier post (and I clarify here) that this current thinking might simply be a pitstop in the process towards something a little more coherent – his “cosmological constant,” leading to a new hypothesis or theory. I trust though, that he will still be committed to metaphysical materialism no matter what new thinking he posits.
Hawking’s books are at the top of the best sellers in science, even more so than Richard Dawkins’. But he doesn’t publish often. I’m thinking that perhaps this new book was published in haste to get something out there, and maybe it’s a little premature. In some future book, he might just surprise us like he did with his first.
KF,
There was an unauthorized publication not too long ago entitled “A Theory of Everything,” which was a collection of Hawking’s unpublished writings. Hawking never endorsed it’s publication; and in-fact has repudiated it.
What’s interesting about this is his initial excitement over a “unified theory” in “A Brief History of Time,” eventually leading us to knowing “the mind of God.” Hawking talked a lot about God in that book, but it’s important to understand that Hawking’s God is very different than the God of theism. To Hawking, God is simply an “abstract concept of order and harmony,” which is perhaps why he is now dismissing the concept. His current repudiation of a “unified theory” indicates that his concept of God as an “abstract concept of order and harmony” is no longer needed.
So I think we should use caution with respect to what Hawking means by “God.” He doesn’t mean the theistic God. However, he seems to lump his concept of God with the thesitic God in dismissing both concepts. I’m not even certain he realizes the distinction when he says “That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions — the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings.”
When Hawking says “design” he doesn’t mean teleological design, but design by the “order and harmony” of the laws of physics. This is perhaps what his book’s title is referring to.
Another interesting observation is that he doesn’t dismiss “design” as an abstract meaning “order and harmony,” but he does dismiss a designer as the “harmonic orderer.” In other words, Hawking posits design without a designer.
BTW, thanks for the interesting article from NS.
CY:
You are right, there are many views and ideas on God afoot, and God as ordering principle, an impersonal, perhaps immanent, even almost pantheistic view, has been fairly common.
The NS article lays out the basic problem with the current stage of argument. Though, it tries t6o soften the blow.
It would be interesting to see something really new.
G
Here’s HuffiPo’s take on Hawking’s new book:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....05773.html
Pretty dismal rationalizations:
“Is it true? Maybe. It is a reasonable extrapolation from incomplete evidence. However, there may be other explanations that have yet to be explored in a scientific manner. Two things are certain. The evidence clearly shows that the Universe we inhabit is not the handiwork of an omnipotent, perfect Creator. Whatever the true explanation, the traditional interpretation of Genesis makes no sense. There are just too many inefficiencies, extravagances, and plain bad “design” for that to hold.”
But according to Naff, we should still be able to have faith in such a Creator err….faith in something:
“The other certainty is this: authentic faith does not depend on traditional creation stories. ‘Faith’ is a vague term, but I suggest it has two essential characteristics: it is a belief that ultimately some good will come of it all, and while its components may be reshaped by evidence it is a belief that transcends the evidence. In short, people who feel that such and such scientific claim must be false or their whole religious belief system will collapse don’t really have faith. They have a membership in a particular ideology.”
Faith transcends the evidence? No clay, faith does not transcend evidence. Faith in what is reasonable is confirmed by evidence. Faith in what is not reasonable transcends nothing.
Continuing, he states:
“Ideologies come and go. Faith is an enduring characteristic of most human beings. I have, in various essays, suggested ways that faith might be empirically true. I won’t reiterate them here. Let me instead close with these thoughts:
* Every single word of what Hawking now says might be true, and yet something wonderful may yet happen.
* Beyond all doubt, God exists — in the minds of his (or her) followers. Whether God is more than a belief is itself a question of belief, but that belief makes a difference in our world.
* The future is not wholly determined, and to the extent that we control our destiny, our fates depend not on pure reason nor on pure faith, but on just the right intertwining of the two.”
So that’s it; God only exists in the minds of “His (or her) followers,” but all the evidence suggests that He is not real. So why have faith? Because “Faith is an enduring characteristic of most human beings,” and “I have, in various essays, suggested ways that faith might be empirically true. I won’t reiterate them here.”
Well he can’t reiterate them here because he has already dismissed the ways that faith (at least in God) could be empirically true. Well faith is empirically true in the sense that some people have faith in certain things. That part of faith is empirically true. But what of the objects of faith? Does he have evidence that the objects of faith (God or fairies or devils) could be empirically true? I doubt it.
But we could all at least have faith that good will overcome evil; right? Just what “good” would that be?
Well the good inherent in Darwinism or the larger materialistic philosophy, of course. But “there are just too many inefficiencies, extravagances, and plain bad “design” (without a designer arguments) for that to hold.”
So what does this all have to do with the vastness of the universe? Well despite the vastness of the universe and all the chance potential for great thinking, which would inevitably come out of it, we are still capable of irrationality, I guess.