Why is there something rather than nothing?

This is a question which has puzzled philosophers, scientists and theologians over centuries, and still to this day continues to be unanswered. Why is there something rather than nothing?

The Earth, universe and galaxies all seem to be in existence, but why are they in existence? Why is there something rather than nothing?

One explanation to this question is that something else created the 'something', and before that something else created the something else. It seems to be an endless, unanswered cycle, whereby you are always looking for one more thing to have created the previous something.  

Max Tegmark, cosmologist, suggested that there is however one thing which seems to have always existed. Mathematics. It seems mathematics is one concept which was never created, ever. He believed that this included mathematical objects such as the cube and the sphere. These concepts exist outside of space and time, as the cube was not created 14 billion years ago, however we still feel as though it exists. 

Another explanation to the question why is there something rather than nothing comes from Brian Greene (from Columbia university), who suggests that maybe the answer to the question is much more simple than expected. He used the example of the film The Matrix, explaining that maybe like in the film, our brains are being stimulated to think that we are in a given reality even though we are not. The idea can lead us to think of the conclusion; is mathematics a description of reality, or is mathematics reality itself. Is maths something that was invented, or discovered? The idea of the simulated multi-universe gives us a way of thinking about it because if you and I are in a computer simulation, then this is very good, and feels very real - as we believe that we are going through a real life. If this is the case, and you opened up the computer controlling it all, then you would find a bunch of numbers; one's and zero's being manipulated by mathematical equations. So if this is a computer simulation, then we would be mathematics. We would be what mathematics feels; which is reality. 

Finally, some may not answer this question at all, and may suggest that the question is a like a dog chasing its tail - a tautology. 

Maybe the universe itself is a tautology. Perhaps a strange loop is the engine that drives existence - the unresolveability of the paradox keeps it in motion forever. 

C.S

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

            “The existence of evil in the world is the “rock of atheism”, this was famously said by Philosopher David Hume in the 18^thCentury. However, many philosophers have put forward their arguments to prove the reality of God despite Evil and Suffering in the world. One of which is the `Existence of God` by Richard Swinburne.  When reading his work, he presents a number of separate arguments but the one that most caught my attention was “How Evils serve Greater Goods”.

Swinburne suggests that sometimes the evil in this world serves a greater good or a greater purpose. He states that “such bad actions, like physical pain, provide opportunities for good actions to be done in response to them”, we could relate this to when a child must go to the dentist to have tooth removed, despite the pain the child will endure, he will benefit from this as it allows another tooth to grow. He also describes the consequences of having a world without pain. He states that we “show courage when threatened by a gunman, as well as when threatened by cancer; and show sympathy to those likely to be killed by gunmen as well as to those likely to die of cancer” However, if we simply imagine what our lives would be like without these emotions then “…merely would none of us have the opportunity to respond with sympathy or courage or reforming zeal…so many of us would have an easy life that we simply would not have much opportunity to show courage or indeed manifest much in the way of goodness at all”. Essentially, Swinburne means that it is vital we are able to express emotions such as courage and sympathy, for in a world without pain we would never be given the opportunity to express this. We can only help people if they are suffering, therefore Swinburne believes that God must allow evil and suffering to occur so that we can use our emotions to know when people need help. However if God was to replace disease by “such an increase of inbuilt depravity” Swinburne states that we would live in “a world in which humans (and animals) lacked much natural affection for parents, children, neighbours, etc. would be a horrible place”

On the other hand, despite this being a good inductive argument for the existence of God although there is suffering and evil in the world, I still feel that there are faults with this argument. When Swinburne suggests that everything serves a greater purpose, I think back to events in history which I am yet to see a greater purpose. The Holocaust, for example, is one of the most infamous example of moral evil to this day. 11 million people died and for what reason? I personally fail to see what goodness came from this immoral act and am sure I am not the only person who has this point of view. However, I do see how good can come out of natural disaster. For instance, the Boxing Day Tsunami in Indonesia which tragically took 230, 000 lives, it gave other people around the world the chance to donate money, provide aid and help those who were suffering. Although, it is still hard to contemplate why God would allow so many people to die and so many more people to suffer because of this event, with only some good actually being derived from it.

 Er.B

 

Does the three-parent baby law make human life disposable ?

 

This week saw Britain become the first country in the world to allow the creation of so-called “three-parent” babies with MPs voting overwhelmingly in favour of the technique of mitochondrial donation. However, this milestone in medical science is one of great controversy.

 

The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has condemned the House of Commons decision to vote in favour of legalising three-parent children. Auxiliary Bishop John Sherrington of Westminster stated that the "Three-parent baby law makes human life disposable. " But is he right to suggest this? Will this new law really make human life disposable ?

 

There is no doubt that this new law will help people's lives. About 2,500 women of child-bearing age in Britain are thought to be at risk of passing on mitochondrial disorders to their children. About one in 6,500 babies is born with a severe form of the disease, which affects vital organs such as the brain, heart and muscles. It is as Ms Ellison told MPs in the commons debate “For many families affected, this is the light at the end of the tunnel”

 

However, I can understand the point that Bishop Sherrington makes. There is a worry that this new law could lead to a slippery slope of genetically modified “designer babies”. I think that for some there is the perception that soon couples will be designing their children, like they would design a new room, choosing every aspect of their child's genetic makeup. It is important to remember that even though an embryo may not be a fully developed, 9 month old baby, it is still a human life that should be treated as one. As Bishop Sherrington states "The human embryo is a new human life with potential; it should be respected and protected from the moment of conception and not used as disposable material.”

 

So is Bishop Sherrington right? Will this new law lead us to a slippery slope or will it be the light at the end of the tunnel for so many families ?

 

VKD



Response to Stephen Fry

Stephen Fry “How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault? It is not right; it’s utterly evil… why should I respect a capricious, mean minded, stupid God who created a world that is so full of injustice and pain.”

If I refer back to St Augustine’s theodicy in response to this statement, he believes that freedom is the fundamental principle of evil and suffering because mankind abused their free will by disobeying God. This is seen in Adam and Eve rebelling against God in the Garden of Eden, therefore God did not create evil, He only created goodness but man spoilt it all by sinning and bringing evil into this world. Augustine argued that evil did not really exist as a thing in itself. Rather it is merely an absence of good. (Privatio boni) He claims that evil is a punishment of sin or an act of one person being sinful to another; none of that evil comes directly from God.

Stephen fry referred to the existence of bone cancer in children. In response, St. Irenaeus’ would say that suffering is a necessary part of God’s created universe; it is through suffering that human souls are made noble, as we develop, learn and mature through the bad things in life. The world is a ‘vale of soul making’.  We can also say that the human body is an extremely complex machine that has many faults right from birth, therefore we are put on this earth to be tested in many ways and this pain should strengthen our faith in Him.  Earth is not supposed to be perfect and full of perfect, free moral agents. This is why God created heaven and Hell. If you’re a good person, then you get to enjoy a forever-lasting afterlife in heaven. 

Fry describes the existence of underserved misery as "utterly, utterly evil." This is an interesting moral perspective, especially when viewed alongside Richard Dawkins' comments on the problem of suffering:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."                                                                                                                                                              Dawkins articulates what happens if you take God out of your view of the world. In a godless universe we lose any concept of ultimate justice, good or evil. The universe is ultimately impersonal and indifferent to any of these concerns. Therefore, removing God from the equation does nothing whatsoever to eradicate the problem of evil and suffering in this world.

At the heart of the Fry's argument is the idea that the world that exists is as God intended it to be. He assumes that God deliberately created a universe with appalling suffering. But a central doctrine of the Christian faith is that God created a good and perfect world and after the fall of humanity nothing is fully as it should be. Rather than abandoning us when we make mistakes, God stepped into our history. Jesus died on the cross to bring forgiveness and reconciliation. He promises a future where evil is finally overthrown, however in the meantime we should follow in the footsteps of Jesus, showing the same love and grace to everyone.

S.C

Religion from an athiest point of view

I have been a catholic for all my life and when it came to the choice of making my confirmation I did not have to think twice in saying yes. It never occurred to me that my brother, who is a self-confessed atheist, had to make the decision to not make his confirmation. We have been raised in the same house by the same parents and brought up with the same religious beliefs for all our lives, yet we differed in our opinions on faith. This got me thinking and I decided to ask my brother why he decided to not believe in God and this is what I found out.

When I think of death I automatically think of going to heaven and being reunited with God, however when people do die my brother believes that they will just stay in the ground. I asked my brother does this not make you feel as if you are living a life that means nothing as when you die it is all lost and he said yes. You live your life the way you want to, there will be no judgement or reward everyone will just die. He said that there cannot be a heaven if God does not exist.

I then went on to ask my brother, how do you know God does not exist? He responded with all the evil and suffering in the world. My brother believes that evil and suffering is proof that God does not exist because he does not believe that a God who is supposed to be all loving and caring would allow his creations to go through such terrible times. To this I said to my brother, but evil and suffering is not for the sake of getting hurt, there is a reason for it. From the tough times we experience we will gain strength and knowledge and this will help us in the future. In reply my brother said there are other ways to gain strength and knowledge that do not involve being put through hell to gain them.

From this talk with my brother I have concluded that even though my brother and I had the same upbringing we both took a very different view on religion. My brother looks at the bad things and says how can a loving God allow this?, whereas I would look at it and say I wonder why I needed to gain this strength and knowledge, what will happen to me in the future for me to need it? Religion is not based on the things you are taught it is based on how you interpret the world and your experiences that form your opinion.

H.H