On the Origin of Everything…From Nothing

Lawrence Krauss wants to convince people that it is possible for something to come from “nothing.” Or, somewhat more accurately, he argues that quantum mechanics provides a way of demonstrating that it is possible for the physical universe to arise from the chance arrangement of quantum fields. And this, according to Krauss, proves that the physical universe did in fact come from nothing.

In a recent New York Times review, David Albert takes that argument apart. The article is very well written and definitely worth a few minutes of your time. Here’s how Albert gets things going:

Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Period. Case closed. End of story. I kid you not. Look at the subtitle. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to super­naturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is ­devastating.”

Well, let’s see. There are lots of different sorts of conversations one might want to have about a claim like that: conversations, say, about what it is to explain something, and about what it is to be a law of nature, and about what it is to be a physical thing. But since the space I have is limited, let me put those niceties aside and try to be quick, and crude, and concrete.

And he concludes the article with a thoughtful, and devastating, comment on the way in which typically gets portrayed in books like this:

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. When I was growing up, where I was growing up, there was a critique of religion according to which religion was cruel, and a lie, and a mechanism of enslavement, and something full of loathing and contempt for every­thing essentially human. Maybe that was true and maybe it wasn’t, but it had to do with important things — it had to do, that is, with history, and with suffering, and with the hope of a better world — and it seems like a pity, and more than a pity, and worse than a pity, with all that in the back of one’s head, 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.

You’ll have to read the rest to get the gist of Albert’s argument (and enjoy his writing).




  1. Ramon Mendoza says

    Great post, Mark! I remember wanting to instinctively raise my hand while watching the episode on the Big Bang in the series, “How the Universe Works” when this subject came up. I was puzzled by Michio Kaku’s definition of nothing as “empty space”. If empty space is indeed dark matter, then how can this dark matter that exists be defined as absolutely nothing? I’m glad to see that people in academia, like David Albert at Columbia, ask similar questions.

    Thanks for sharing!

    Ramon Mendoza
    Western Seminary student


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *