I've been rather neglecting religious posts the last while. I hope to do a few more on Blake's book. However I was asked by one of the folks at Dialog to comment on an article that appeared there a few months back. So I'll use that as a starting off point to discuss a few religious issues. The issue is ultimately the big bang and how Mormons deal with it. For any interested non-Mormons reading this a major point of theology for Mormons is the idea of a pre-existence. Roughly the idea that we existed as spirits prior to our birth. Mormons believe that we are co-eternal with God. Although it's not exactly clear how to take that. Most take it to mean that in our essential natures both humans and God always existed. This entails an infinite past. Given that Mormons also tend to take spirits as material rather that as Platonic or Thomist souls this also means that the big bang can pose a problem.
The Dialog article in question is from volume 39 (Summer of 2006). The full article isn't available online, although a partial excerpt is found here. (I can't speak to how long that link will work though - Dialog often puts articles up for a few months for discussion and then takes them down) The article is Kirk Hagen's "Eternal Progression in a Multiverse: An Explorative Mormon Cosmology." It appears that Hagen is responding to some criticisms by Paul Copan, William Craig and others of Mormon theology. I've discussed these critiques in the past here but I'll not bother linking since I'll be repeating most of the stuff in this post.
Roughly, as I see it, there are two major theological problems between Mormon theology and the big bang is that we believe spirits have always existed and thus our very theory of eternal progression demands an infinite past, infinite future and probably infinite expanse. The problem is that our universe appears to have a definite beginning and a definite size. Even if one quibbles about the big bang being problematic prior to what is called the Planck time when quantum mechanics dominates, our materialistic theology means that the universe was far too hot and small to work for our theology. So the two problems are that we have an absolute beginning and limited space.
Fortunately over the past decades there have been speculations about a multiverse. The first major version was by a Russian physicist Andrei Linde (now at Stanford). He proposed a inflationary multiverse which roughly was the idea that there were infinite bubble universes. Each universe formed from a prior universe when the quantum conditions were appropriate. (A sufficiently flat space time) However it didn't appear that information could flow between universes.
Waterloo physicist Lee Smolin, best known for the Loop Quantum Gravity approach to unifying gravity and quantum mechanics, came up with a related theory. This theory suggested that the conditions of the universe from which bubble universes formed affects these bubble universes. In this way a kind of evolution develops where we tend to get universes with certain properties. This theory has recently been criticized but isn't out of the running yet.
Superstring theory, which became M-theory, also has some approaches to a multiverse. In M-theory you have 11 dimensions in which everything exists. A particular universe can be thought of a membrane floating in this higher dimensional space, much like a piece of paper floating under water in a pool. Not only can there be multiple universes, in the sense we think of universes, but they can even collide and interact. There is even suggestion that there may be the possibility of empirical evidence for such colliding universes. What is most existing about this approach, theologically speaking, is that it allows for information flow between universes. Once you have that you have a way (potentially) for spirits to enter into this universe and then leave this universe. That is, the big bang ceases to be an issue. As does the heat death of the universe.
Now it's important to note that all of these are highly speculative. Until very, very recently there was not even a hint that there would be any empirical evidence for a multiverse. So we should be cautious about latching onto these too heavily as a theological solution for what I see as one of our very, very few potential theological weaknesses. However at a minimum the potential of a multiverse entails that theological attacks our the Mormon notion of spirits or infinity are misplaced.
I should note that Dialog apparently sent similar letters to other blogs. Over a BCC they had a post on this same article, although it focused more on the compatibility of science and religion. I made quite a few comments there some might find interesting.
I think the quibble about Plank time is perhaps more important that it is often given credit. Specifically, it calls into question some of the things that are often presented as being axiomatic for big bang theory, like the idea that the big bang requires a beginning to time and space.
By the way, it is Dialogue, not Dialog.
The problem is that by the time you get to Planck time the universe is already so small and hot that it is a de facto beginning even if the details of the big bang are up in the air. So while some point to the mystery of Planck time and the lack of a empirically tested theory of quantum gravity, in practice things are all ready pretty problematic when you stick to the period where GR rules.
Clark,
I agree that it is problematic if the universe before Plank time is all that there is. I gather that is your point and I agree.
However, there are several problems that are attributed to the big bang, and some of them assume we know things about pre-Plank time which we do not actually know. For example, I have seen comments in the 'nacle that make metaphysical claims about the nature of time based on the big bang requiring a beginning to time. This requires quite a bit more than the de facto beginning you refer to, and I don't think big bang theory necessarily supports such metaphysical claims.
I agree the big bang doesn't necessarily support such claims - although I typically see them made by Mormon critics than Mormons. However even if what's going on in the Planck time is more open than some, following GR, suppose. It's not quite as open as some would make out. The big bang, among theorists (if not all astronomers) is pretty established at this point. There may be a few surprises, but probably not that many.
As I said the real issues are in more obscure aspects of approaches to quantum gravity.
(A quick thought model)
What about time? Say we have two Universes that are babies (still singularities) and we know for certain that once allowed to explode, each Universe will expand and fizzle out over several billion years in exactly the same manner even to the smallest degree. Now we introduce a condition where we set one Universe off a day earlier than the other Universe. To a person [GOD]watching all this happen from above in their Multiverse, its clear that no, these two Universe's are not identical because the Universe that was born earlier, has all its particles in different positions from the Universe that was born a day late. However, if you inserted 2 observers (Jacob J & Clark) from your Multiverse into these 2 Universes respectively, so that they could both watch the 2 Universes expand and collapse over billions of years, both observers would come back to your Multiverse after the experiment was done and report that yes, indeed they both observed the exact same Universe. Of course, one observer would leave a day earlier, and one would come back a day later, yet still, both once inside your Universe would say they lived the same life for a 100 billion years or whatever.
So you ask, what's the point of what I just said? The point is this, say the experiment now decides to start one Universe a nanosecond before the other Universe. The experimenter (GOD) watching the Universes play out again would see that yes, they are very similar indeed, but even a nanosecond is enough time for a photon to travel a great distance in space, so he would have to say that the 2 Universes are different when he takes snapshot pictures of them and compares. Realizing that even a nanosecond is more than enough time to define two Universes as distinctly different, the experimenter devises one last attempt to create two identical Universe's in both space and time. This time the experimenter starts one of the Universes before the second by a time interval of only the 'Planck time' (the shortest theoretical piece of time possible). Finally the experimenter is satisfied that when he studies his instant snapshot photographs of each Universe, that yes, they are in fact not only spatially identical but temporally identical as well.
Sorry to have commented so much in the past week, but this statement really irked me:
So we should be cautious about latching onto these too heavily as a theological solution for what I see as one of our very, very few potential theological weaknesses.
Another apology before I begin, I don't know any other way of saying this, but that comes across as completely arrogant. By theology here you have to mean a systematic theology, because a narrative theology would not allow lend itself to claims of strongness or weakness. (yes, there are other types of theology but those are the only two you have spoken about).
My big complaint is this. There is no Mormon theology either official or unofficial that can in any way be called systematic, thus the claim that something is a potential theological weakness or strength is simply implausible, if not impossible.
My secondary complaint is that we as Mormons really have not a clue what pre mortal life is, what it is like, what the nature of an intelligence is, what the nature of a spirit is, what the relation of intelligence to spirit is, what the nature of eternity is, etc. Yet, any analysis of the supposed problems the big bang proposes for Mormon theology would need to have those questions answered. We as a people like to think we have a grasp on these topics but I would argue that we don't.
You were right to bring up the fact that the multiverse theories are highly speculative, more science fiction than science. The conclusion I draw is that this is merely trying to solve highly speculative theological theories with science fiction.
Feel free to insult me, I have been pretty rough and I deserve equal treatment in return.
By theological weakness I mean theological claims that have big philosophical problems. We, as with all theology, have some. But I believe we have far fewer. I don't quite see that as arrogant since I think I've acknowledged that there are some problems. Take the problem of evil. Yeah, we have some nice solutions to the logical problem of evil but it still leaves an empirical problem. If we say this life is for our development we have to explain how all the many kinds of evil beyond free will lead to our development. On the face of it, it seems difficult to assert it does.
There are a few others as well.
It's less systematic theology, which I see as a collection of claims shown to be a coherent whole, than it is just problems with claims. I'm making no systematic claims. (Indeed as you know I doubt the notion of a System in the philosophical sense) Narrative theology is interesting but it's harder to pin down problems in a philosophical sense.
Regarding pre-mortality while we don't know a lot I don't think that entails we can discount what we do know or what we at least have evidence for.
I disagree that a multiverse is more science fiction than science. I never claimed that. I think it definitely science - just science with weak evidence at this point.
It's less systematic theology which is a weakness in many persons eyes. This is why I thought it was highly arrogant to say it is one of the few potential weaknesses.
I disagree that a multiverse is more science fiction than science. I never claimed that. I think it definitely science - just science with weak evidence at this point. There is zero evidence for the existence of any multiverse and it has been used in countless Star Trek episodes. That makes it science fiction.
I don't understand. Why is it not being systematic theology a weakness? I'm not sure what you are saying.
Regarding evidence, there is no empirical evidence. However while empirical evidence is key for accepting a theory clearly it isn't the only evidence that makes people accept theories. Consider String theory, of which Sean Carroll offers a good defense. Does it have problems? Certainly. Is the evidence weak? Yes. But I agree with him that the discovery of carriers of gravity by accident when all direct methods failed is a kind of mathematical evidence. Just like I think there was evidence for GR prior to the famous empirical evidence.
Sorry for the confusion. To claim that something has no weaknessess implies two things, that the parts that make it up form a complete whole and that the parts themselves have no weaknesses. I would argue that Mormon theology has the latter but not the former. Think of it this way, it's silly to argue that a pair of brakes and a transmission have no weaknesses when they are by themseleves. If they have any weaknessess they will be shown when they are integrated into a car (a system). At that point they may show all kinds of weaknesses, you won't know until you put them there. Likewise our non-systematic and incomplete theology may have weaknesses when integrated into a theoretical sytematic theology which only God knows about at this time. It's arrogant to say that they parts have no weaknesses before you even know what all the parts are or how they fit together.
As for the evidence, mathematical evidence does not count in science, no matter how much theoretical physicists wish it were so. The discovery of carriers of gravity does not count as no one has ever observed a graviton, at least as far as I know. If it is discovered then it will be evidence for all theories which predict its existence. The problem is that the standard model also predicts gravitons, so it would also be bolstered by the discovery of a graviton. String theory must predict something unique and unexpected and then be shown to be empirical fact if it is to every claim to be scientific and not just theoretical musings.
David, I'll just disagree with how you view science. (Although I'd be the first to admit your view is a popular one which makes it all the more problematic since it entails most theoretical physics - the Queen of all sciences - isn't science at all)
The car analogy for systematic theology is a poor one I feel. The theological pieces can have problems quite independent of needing to know the whole. If I'm reading you right your position is basically that we can't say anything about theology.
The theological pieces can have problems quite independent of needing to know the whole. Yes but to say the parts are weak or strong before you know how they fit together as a whole is arrogant and naive.
Yes, most current theoretical physics is not science at all. However, this is a recent phenomenon, since the 1970's to be exact. For most of the history of science theoretical physics has made predictions that were able to be rapidly tested empirically. Both QM and GR received rapid empirical evidence in their support. The current troubles in theoretical physics do not necessitate a redefining of science as some would have. Theoretical physicists need newer and testable theories. You don't deal with bankruptcy by redefining poverty but by earning more money.
I don't see how that is either arrogant or naive. So I'll just have to agree to disagree. We never know the whole and yet we are often able to evaluate parts. Look at science where we lack a whole but can discuss strengths of theories in different parts of science.
As for theoretical physics, I'll just have to agree to disagree there. Empiricism is part of the process of science and a necessary and essential part. However to assert it has to be there from the beginning is simply wrong. That would suggest that Einstein wasn't doing science while working on SR and GR, for example. Now one can criticize string theory for the length of time before getting to that empirical stage. But to suggest that it has to happen immediately seems false on its face.
I'll concede the argument on the whole vs parts, it does lead to problems of never being able to analyze something until the whole is known. On that count I was barking up the wrong tree.
I do think my argument that we simply do not know enough about the nature of pre-mortal existence, especially the nature of an intelligence and its relation to a spirit to know if the big bang presents a problem or not.
The problem with string theory is that string theory deals with energies which are completely untestable. If someone in the string theory field were to work on ways of testing string theory at lower energies or find a way to generate the energies needed, I would say that string theorists are doing science, but I have seen none of that. The other problem with string theory is that it does not explain existing data better than current theories do. A good scientific theory should either make novel predictions, explain current data better, or ideally do both. String theory does neither. Also, I never said that theories have to be tested empirically immediately, but there has to be some idea as to what an empirical test would entail along with some reasonable time frame for accomplishing it. Again, string theory does neither.
What causes the problem is the King Follet Discourse of an infinite regress of beings. So while we don't know everything if the KFD is reasonably correct then the theological problems appear. Now some devalue the KFD, but I have trouble with that for exegetical reasons.
As to string theory, I think it does explain things better. But perhaps that's wrapped up in what it means to explain. One can debate about whether it explains it correctly. And it seems that epistemological issue is ultimately the problem.
Three comments:
First,one of the common confusions that arises when trying to identify what is and is not science is the failure to differentiate between the process of science and the (tentative) conclusions of science (or alternatively the body of scientific knowledge). In my opinion, both the process and conclusions of science qualify as SCIENCE. From this perspective, string theory and multiverse theory and other inventions of theoretical physicists are clearly part of the process of science. Science fiction can exist as naked speculation. Theoretical physicists must attempt to establish internal consistency and consistency with all known observations and attempt to formulate a testable hypothesis. The fact that a speculative theory has not yet achieved testable status, that it is still in embryonic form, does not remove it from the process of science and relegate it to the entertaining fantasies of science fiction IF all parties agree that final assent to its claims is contingent upon testable confirmation of the mature theory. At present, these "theories" are elaborate but immature. (I consider proposed mechanisms to be mature when they approach the level of forming significant hypotheses.)
Second, as to David Clark's second point in Post #4, which in my estimation is the more important, I believe he is spot on. We are completely ignorant of the nature of spirit or intelligence as described in Mormon theology. Though we have a broad description of spirit as refined matter ("matter...more fine or pure"), no one really knows what that means. Is that matter a form that is subject to observation to the extent that protons, electrons, pi mesons or neutrinos are subject to observations? (Note that D&C 131:7 says that it "...can only be discerned by purer eyes". Is this a problem similar to observing extremely small objects with relatively large photons?) Is there a necessary relation between spirit matter and coarse matter as described by science? Can refined matter (spirit) and coarse matter exist independently? Are they part of the same dimension? (BTW, it is perfectly permissible to speculatively invent dimensions for refined matter outside any proposed by science since science doesn't recognize the existence of spirit matter or make provision for it in its theories)? Is refined matter actually a form of energy? Is it actually a type of energy that is observable in the scientific sense or is it, to coin a phrase, "refined energy?" I don't think there is the slightest clue in authoritative Mormon writing as to the answers to any of these questions although we are certainly free to speculate. Of course, we know even less about the nature of intelligence or the process of organizing intelligence into spirits. As far as we know, spirit and intelligence may exist independently of any current scientific theory. In other words, the beginning of time at the moment of the Big Bang may simply be irrelevant to any discussion of spirit and/or intelligence. I certainly believe that there exists evidence of spirit in the form of phenomenal consciousness but, though everyone apparently experiences phenomenal consciousness, it has escaped detection by accepted scientific means. BTW, when I read about spirit being matter that is "more fine or pure", I simply interpret that spirit is subject to some set of immutable laws. I don't believe that the scientific vocabulary of Joseph Smith's era was sufficient to describe the concept any clearer than he did and I suspect that that would not be much different were the revelation to be received today.
Third, would it actually be a huge problem for "Mormon theology" if it turned out that spirit and intelligence were inseparably connected to the physical universe and that that universe had a beginning in the distant past? I know that the scriptures often talk in absolute terms whereas I am a finitist. I have long accepted that, though God is referred to as omnipotent, there are likely logical constraints on his power (examples: the ability to win a chess game after having been placed in checkmate or the ability to exalt souls without some participation by the person to be exalted and the exercise of some free agency). IF you accept those logical limitations on the meaning of omnipotence, is it not possible that eternal time may have its own logical boundaries, perhaps naturally limited by ALL time?
Just a quick continuation of my third point:
Is it possible that references to eternal time or endless time simply refer to God's time? (See D&C 19) Since we know so little about the powers or prerogatives of deity, I would be loathe to make any pronouncements as to whether God predated or antedated the Big Bang. However, based on D&C 19, saying that "God is Eternal" may be synonymous with saying "God is God" or "I AM that I AM."
I realize that postulating a time when neither God nor his spirit nor his intelligence existed is not mainstream Mormon theology. I am not suggesting that that must be the case. All I am saying is that since God reserves the right to assign his own meanings to terms such as "endless" and "eternal," even using them as synonyms for himself, how would we know? Speculations by church leaders who may have misinterpreted(?) the meaning of "endless" and "eternal" or similar phrases would merely shed light on the wrong pathway.
Regarding D&C 131 - agree it tends to be sufficiently vague as to render it problematic. While taking it as matter in the usual sense seems a safe reading it certainly isn't the only one. Quinn in Mormonism and the Magic World View has a throw away sentence asserting it is tied to neoPlatonism. I spent a considerable time trying to find out what he was talking about and I'm still not sure. However it may be the difference in neoPlatonism between matter qua matter and what Plotinus talks about as spiritual matter which is roughly the "place" for intelligence just as matter offers a "place" for soul. But one has to be careful here (as Quinn clearly wasn't) After all around the time of the Renaissance lots of ideas about spirits as quasi-material were around. Some of these were wrapped up with people injecting some Platonism and Gnosticism into the existing Scholasticism. Others were just folks thinking through issues.
Anyway, I agree one has to be careful. Especially given how "pure eyes" tends to be used in terms of phenomena in 19th century Mormonism.
As to whether it would be a problem if intelligence were tied to matter and matter had an absolute beginning. I think it would, although clearly one could always just reject the relevant ideas as uninspired - much as some theologians downplay or outright reject the King Follet Discourse.
So in one way it wouldn't be a problem at all. If one takes the idea of infinity seriously in Mormon thought (and I'd argue one ought) then I think a finite past and finite matter is hugely problematic.
I can see the insuperable problems with an absolute beginning, but what's the problem with an infinite regress of Gods?
Well, Clark, you inspired me to go back and reread the King Follet Discourse. Probably not a bad outcome from our discussion.
I guess I am not reading it as strictly as you. As stated previously, from D&C 19 I conclude that the Lord feels pretty comfortable about using words like "eternal" and "endless" in a pretty novel way. (A vexing problem for philosophers that requires precision in terminology) Part of my problem when Joseph Smith uses similar language is I don't know if it is intentionally used as a synonym for God, in a hyperbolic sense or in the absolute sense that would apply in ordinary conversation. I also don't know if he is parroting the language of God, paraphrasing the language of God, articulating an impression from God or expressing ideas from his personal synthesis of revelation, scripture, study and meditation. This is a fairly significant point since, as an early 19th Century man, Joseph Smith would probably not have anticipated a beginning to time unless it had been specifically revealed to him. This would have a fairly strong effect on his cosmological musings or even his interpretation of or paraphrasing of his revelations since the KFD was not one of those "Thus saith the Lord, Quote...Quote...Quote!" transcriptions. I am hesitant to ascribe an understanding of 20th and 21st Century physics to a 19th Century religious leader that to my knowledge didn't show a proclivity towards the sciences. That being the case, Joseph would have interpreted even divine revelation (if that is what the principles espoused in the KFD were) through the prism of his cosmological and religious prejudices. For example, I could easily imagine Joseph receiving the teaching that man's spirit is as immortal as God and surmising that we must have had no beginning rather than that we had a contemporaneous beginning with God. (I don't know if either of those propositions is true, I just don't have enough confidence from the language or the context of the KFD to form a more concrete conclusion.) It wouldn't be the first time that the Lord had not corrected misunderstandings on the spot.
Joseph Smith also made the specific point that the spirit could not live forever unless it had no beginning. Joseph himself described that position as "good logic." That makes me wonder if the principle was derived logically or if the logic was only presented because Joseph assumed that the faith of his listeners would be too weak if he ascribed the principle to revelation. It makes me wonder further when the ring analogy he uses is inapposite. There is not a natural correlation between the geometry of a closed space and the linearity of time. If there were, we would have to dramatically change our understanding of eternal life to a cyclical rather than a progressive phenomenon. Besides, the logic isn't that sound. We know that at least in an ideal sense a number line can have a beginning but no end. Furthermore, if we live in an open universe, then it has a beginning with the Big Bang but no end. Besides, according to this principle, if the Big Bang was the genesis of physical matter, that would imply that our resurrected physical bodies could not be eternal, requiring an endless succession of molts. Of course, Joseph Smith probably wasn't familiar with these concepts. That wasn't his fault. He lived in another era and I think it was probably more important to the Lord to get the Church going in 1830 and to re-institute the doctrines of salvation than to wait 180 years so that his prophet of the restoration would be more grounded in our modern cosmologies. Besides, in another 180 years our current ideas may seem dated to our descendants.
I do believe that the KFD probably derived in some part from revelation or inspiration that is not elsewhere recorded. I struggle a little more with the notion that every word in the KFD was transmitted from the mind of God to the printed page with mathematical precision. While I still harbor these doubts I feel that it is safer to keep my conclusions tentative and to allow for alternative Mormon cosmologies.
Now if you believe from the KFD that God taught Joseph that our spirits had no beginning in the sense that they pre-dated the Big Bang, I would expect that would lead you to decouple spirit matter from this universe. I don't see a huge problem with that in the present since spirit matter is not included in any current theories of the universe which leaves us pretty unconstrained in our speculations.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble