Friday night featured a debate between philosopher-theologian William Lane Craig and physicist Sean Carroll, on the topic of "God in Light of Modern Cosmology". The premise of the debate was whether or not modern scientific understandings of the structure and history of the universe (Cosmology) support or discount the validity of Theism. In some sense, one could see this as a sister issue of the topic Ken Ham and Bill Nye were supposed to address in their recent debate.
In general, I was impressed with both speakers. I knew more or less what to expect of Craig, and he used exactly the two main points I anticipated. He was extremely specific in both terminology and reasoning, a huge advantage in debates, as it makes misrepresentation and side-steps harder. Craig maintained his typical laser-like focus on the specific question at hand, without being side-tracked. That being said, I would have preferred Craig to more directly defend his interpretations of various cosmological theories. Carroll disputed him on those points, but was met without much rebuttal. If Craig's going to bring them up, I'd like to see him take the ideas all the way.
I was not familiar with Carroll prior to this event, but came away with a very favorable impression. He not only handled himself well in the debate, but presented an affable approach which made it far easier to concentrate on his ideas, instead of wading through a tide of arrogant derision. Sadly, this is a trait lacking in most celebrity atheists: a simple recognition that the man on the other side of the platform is just as intelligent and rational as they are. Respect is about more than using low volume and calm tones. If science-minded atheists were more like Sean Carroll and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and less like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, both faith and science would be the better for it.
If Carroll showed any particular weakness, it was a general muddling of the topic at hand, in particular whether theism was a cosmological theory itself, or simply viable in light of cosmology. He also, I think, presented two large philosophical contradictions, which the time allotted didn't give either man much opportunity to tangle over.
So, from both entertainment and informative standpoints, the debate was a great success. Each side's ideas ought to provide ample food for thought. I know I'll personally be investigating several points on each side to learn more. And, I also plan to pick up Carroll's books. He seems a talented communicator, and very knowledgeable in his field. My one concern as I've learned more about him is his overt refusal to accept that science and religion can co-exist, a philosophical bias that has to be kept in mind.
William Lane Craig
Craig's core claim was that modern scientific knowledge does, in fact, support the concept of Theism. He was very careful – and very distinct – in stating that "Theism" was not a cosmological model itself. He was also clear that none of his arguments construed anything like "proof" of God. In other words, no one was proposing "Theism" as an alternative to, say, the Big Bang, or the multitude of theories Carroll mentioned. Instead, he was arguing that the very nature of those theories lend themselves to non-religiously-based principles which support the existence of a theistic God.
Craig used two main points: the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument, specifically the fine tuning of the universe. In its simplest terms, the Kalam argument says the universe began to exist, which requires a non-caused agent, which would be God. Craig claimed that cosmology supports this idea, in particular that there was a "beginning" of the universe. He noted that all models of cyclical, eternal, or otherwise timeless universes fail on multiple levels, and none are considered remotely viable.
Craig also pointed to the balance and specificity of universal constants, known as the "fine tuning" argument. A tiny change in any of the many, many universal constants of physics would cause enormous changes to the universe, and render the universe incapable of self-aware organisms. These constants are not only independent of each other, but they have no basis in other properties of the universe. That is, there is no physical reason why those constants have to be as they are. If they're not necessary, they're either random or intentional. Craig's contention was that the improbability of ours being an "accidental" universe, in light of modern cosmology, made deliberate fine-tuning the most plausible explanation.
Sean Carroll
Carroll claimed three points for his view that Theism was not viable, but in practice only focused on two: "naturalism works", and "theism is not well defined." Unfortunately, I think the way in which Carroll presented these showed a lack of philosophical strength. He seemed to view Theism as a competing theory of cosmology, something Craig had already specifically denied. And, he repeated two particular points that open up gigantic holes in the plausibility of his reasoning, which I'll refer to below. However, he did an excellent job of reminding the audience that terminology matters, as does an accurate understanding of physics.
Carroll strongly disputed Craig's assessment of various cosmological theories, and included quotes from the authors in question. The quotes didn't so much contradict Craig as take some of the force out of his assessments. This is where I would have liked more direct discussion of the theories, but each participant only had 25 minutes total prior to the Q-and-A, with no direct cross-examinations, so they had to pick their battles. As far as it goes, Carroll's rebuttals only seemed to imply that the quoted authors did not believe in God, and did not take the same end conclusions, not that Craig was somehow misrepresenting their work.
I think Carroll made a fair point by criticizing the way some theists — including Craig, to an extent — shade the claims of non-theistic cosmologists by interpreting words somewhat differently than the cosmologists themselves do. Of course, you can't talk to an atheist for five minutes without experiencing the same thing towards the Bible, so I sympathize with his frustration. His belief that theists ought not run away from scientific support once it starts to contradict their preferences was both well-said and crucial, but I wonder if he recognized how well that can apply to atheistic cosmologists, as the entire premise of the debate would suggest.
He also noted, very importantly, that "everyday physics" did not really apply to all points or all places in the universe. This is another point often lost when discussing cosmology, but as it turns out, I think Carroll took the idea too far, leading to the second of his two primary weaknesses.
The Model Argument
Carroll's basic contention for naturalism was that one could construct "models" of the universe which solved all sorts of problems of time and entropy and causality, and required no God. This, I think, represented his first glaring error. I was actually startled to hear him say it the first time, and I'd be interested in reading a transcript or re-watching the debate later to be sure of exactly how he phrased it. In essence, Carroll said that many of these models "were not true", many of them "were not valid", and that they did not actually correspond to reality. And yet, he contended, the bare fact that one could construct models that were valid within themselves was proof that God was not necessary.
In truth, scientists and philosophers have long known that models do not need to be literally true to be useful. Stephen Hawking has noted a model's usefulness is in its ability to make predictions, not whether it's a perfect representation of reality. Punxsutawney Phil would be an acceptable model to use for climate predictions, if he was usually right, from that perspective, even if he's not really sensing anything. The problem is this admits that models do not represent the fullness of reality, and therefore cannot — by definition — be used to exclude plausible ideas that do not directly contradict them. So "naturalism works," in this sense, only if we purposefully ignore part of the real world.
More importantly, it seemed as if Carroll was saying that mere theory, regardless of viability or truth, was somehow a substitute for specific aspects of reality. That simply being able to propose alternatives — true or not — was good enough to dismiss God, sort of a perversion of Occam's Razor. Or, like suggesting that since one doesn't really need to know about wiring to use a light switch, we should be willing to abandon belief in wires and move on with other pursuits.
Imagine a person denying some historical event, on the grounds that they "have a theory". They admit that the theory is probably not correct, and that it fails to match reality in several places. "But that's not important, all that matters is that I can make lots of historical models that get around that fact," they say. "I can write all kinds of sentences and paragraphs which are grammatically correct, even if they're not necessarily true. So I can reject your historical claim." Does that make sense? I'd like to assume Carroll meant no such thing, but he repeated the basic premise several times — that models existed, and though none were really true, they were sufficient enough to dismiss theism.
This is especially fascinating, as Carroll was directly quoted at the start of the debate, saying that people can always come up with elaborate schemes to protect their philosophical preferences against evidence. Craig, I think, missed an opportunity to drive this point home.
Carroll's contention about the definition of theism was really just a repeat of that very claim: that any evidence can be interpreted or explained away. So far as it goes, that's a good point. There are those who make an effort to explain away evidence, or purposefully ignore it, in order to protect a philosophy. But as Craig said, the entire premise of the debate was that certain scientific ideas do suggest theistic concepts, and one could falsify a theistic God through various theological or physical means.
Further, Carroll's criticism of theistic definitions was entirely on the basis of his personal preferences: the universe is unfair, the cosmos is a waste of space, there is too much suffering, God is totally invisible, etc. That last point was the only time I felt he risked caricaturing religious belief. Theism itself is the belief that God has, and does, make Himself known through interactions with the universe. But Carroll's not a theist, so from his philosophical perspective, that it what it is. He readily admitted he was moving off-topic, but seemed to have no other real contention for this view other than those opinions.
Causality
The second major error Carroll made, I think, was his claims about Causality. He rightly noted that the physics we see in our daily lives are not necessarily representative of the universe as a whole. But then, he took this further to say that causality itself did not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole. And yet, Carroll had repeatedly spoken of a universe of "unbreakable laws".
This, Craig did make note of, and for good reason. The entire discipline of science is predicated on the idea that we can connect events in a logical, causal sequence. Once you deny that, science is literally impossible, and we can just make up any crazy idea with the excuse that "the rules don't apply here." Craig rightly noted that Carroll had to rely on causality to build his science, and his models, but was trying to abandon it when it became inconvenient.
Conclusion
All in all, it was an informative and positive debate. It was high on technical terms, including what seemed like several thousand mentions of "Boltzmann Brains", a concept Craig used to attack the idea that universes just randomly appear from some chaotic substrate. If you're not familiar with the Boltzmann Brain idea, you'll definitely want to brush up on it prior to watching the debate. But as the conversation went on, positions became clearer, as did the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. There seemed to be recognition on both sides that philosophical assumptions, more so than physics, separated their views. That's about as much as one could hope for.
Debates that play out as this one did are extremely good for both the scientific and faith communities. Non-believers have nothing to lose, and Christians have nothing to fear, from a bold and honest pursuit of truth. In fact, we have ample reasons to pursue truth, even if we think it will contradict our beliefs (1 Corinthians 15:19). Passionate discussions, such as this between Craig and Carroll, are an excellent way for us to learn each other's views, develop respect for other interpretations, and sharpen our thinking (Proverbs 27:17).