Book Reviews: Getting a Universe From Nothing
A Review of A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss; The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe, by John Barrow; The Grand Design, by Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking
I just finished reading The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. I thought I would give a brief review of this and the other two books listed above. All deal with the subject of “nothing,” the universe perhaps coming from “nothing,” and the physicists here who claim this has relevance to, or even answers the philosophical question, of why there is something rather than nothing.
While Barrow’s book, A Book of Nothing is a worthwhile and scholarly book that I would recommend, I think the other two books (The Grand Design along with A Universe From Nothing) will be the last pop science books I will read on this subject, at least by “scientism-ists” like Krauss, for two reasons:
- These cosmological models proposing how you can get a universe from “nothing” even if true, do nothing to answer the metaphysical question they purport to be addressing. They are simply a textbook example of the fallacy of equivocation as my previous post argued.
- I have a mountain of other books to read and review of in exploring serious issues in philosophy, metaphysics, and science.
Plus, I have an art career to attend.
After reading Krauss and Hawking/Mlodinow’s books, I am done with the genre. I struggled to get through them. Their basic problem was stated above and in my previous post. Others, including philosophers of physics with the relevant PhDs who have commented on this have said the same. I am working on a long post dealing with the metaphysical question of whether something can come from nothing so I will deal with these issues and these books’ claims in more depth there. I will make a few comments here about these books’ remarks on philosophy in general and theology before commenting on Barrows’ book.
Philosophy is Dead, and Theology Is Worse Than Dead
The Grand Design is famous, or better, infamous for stating the following about age old philosophical questions people ask about their existence in the universe and where everything came from:
Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. The purpose of this book is to give the answers…
The Grand Design, p. 5
Philosophy is dead and science is the only source or path to truth apparently. That is scientism. That, like much of the rest of the book, ironically, is philosophy, not science. And scientism, like their proposal of the universe creating itself from “nothing” by a pre-existing “law of gravity,” (p. 180) is self-refuting. Science, the proposed only source of, or path to, truth, cannot show using science alone that it is the only path to truth. Scientism is not a scientific finding. It is philosophy. Which is dead. Which leaves us where? Chasing our tails.
In terms of the question of God’s existence, religion and theology, both books above are dismissive at best. They seem ignorant of the subject. They treat God as if He were one of the gods, perhaps grander, thus something of a god-of-the-gaps in science’s explanation of the workings of the natural world. Or at best a demiurge or deist god that created the world like a watch that tick-tocks by itself thereafter. All of which has nothing to do with the concept of God as the source of existence. At least as classically understood.
Despite Hawking’s claim that philosophers haven’t kept up with science, especially physics, there is an entire field of philosophy devoted to studying physics; it’s called the philosophy of physics. Apparently, Hawking and Mlodinow are the one’s who haven’t been keeping up.
David Alberts, a well known philosopher of physics, gave the following remarks about Krauss’s approach to God and religion:
And I guess it ought to be mentioned, quite apart from the question of whether anything Krauss says turns out to be true or false, that the whole business of approaching the struggle with religion as if it were a card game, or a horse race, or some kind of battle of wits, just feels all wrong — or it does, at any rate, to me… and it seems like a pity, and more than a pity, and worse than a pity, … to think that all that gets offered to us now, by guys like these, in books like this, is the pale, small, silly, nerdy accusation that religion is, I don’t know, dumb.
David Albert, On The Origin of Everything, NYT
Barrow’s The Book of Nothing
John Barrow is a cosmologist best known for the landmark book he co-wrote with Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Barrow’s book on “nothing” deserves a more in-depth review than I will provide here. I read it a couple years ago and am going by memory and my notes. He approaches the topic of nothing in science and philosophy in a more scholarly and responsible manner here than the above two books. He doesn’t have the dismissive attitude toward philosophy as the above books and even mentions some theological perspectives here and there along the way.
Barrow looks at the history of thinking about the concept of nothing in philosophy and science. He also looks at the history of mathematics in its adoption of the number zero as something of the mathematical equivalent of nothing. I found the discussion here interesting. This is a book though by a cosmologist on science’s dealing with the subject of “nothing,” the “vacuum” of space, and the origin of the universe from possible pre-existing quantum states so the focus is ultimately on that. I appreciated the discussion of the broader historical and philosophical context though.
The main value of this book for me was his recounting of the history of scientists trying to create a “vacuum” and deal with “nothing” or get as close to nothing as they could and what they could learn from that. This is the source of current physicists like the ones above using the word “nothing” for a quantum vacuum, etc. Thus the equivocation with the philosophical concept of nothing which is absolute nonexistence or nonbeing. Barrow is more cautious here as a result about science answering the philosophical question of why existence rather than nonexistence obtains.