Bernard Russell and the First Cause

[4gold]

In arguing why God was no better a reason for the First Cause than the Universe, famed atheist Bernard Russell said, “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.”

This was said at a time when Hubble was only making preliminary observations about the expanding universe. Russell had died long before the Big Bang became popular and well-accepted scientific theory.

Now that it is well-accepted that our universe did indeed have a beginning, and it's not due to the poverty of our imaginations, do you think Russell would have changed his argument if he had lived long enough? Does Russell's first cause argument still have legs? Why or why not?

[McCulloch]

In arguing why God was no better a reason for the First Cause than the Universe, famed atheist Bernard Russell said, “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.”

This was said at a time when Hubble was only making preliminary observations about the expanding universe. Russell had died long before the Big Bang became popular and well-accepted scientific theory.

Now that it is well-accepted that our universe did indeed have a beginning, and it's not due to the poverty of our imaginations, do you think Russell would have changed his argument if he had lived long enough? Does Russell's first cause argument still have legs? Why or why not?

I have never heard of the famed atheist Bernard Russell. But the argument he presents looks alarmingly similar to one made by prominent atheist Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970).

The First Cause Argument

Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God. That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality that it used to have; but apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man, and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant, and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

As stated, Russell's argument against the First Cause is still valid. If God is the cause of the universe, then what is the cause of God? If God can be uncaused, why cannot the universe be uncaused? The other weakness of the First Cause argument is that it only points to a deist god not to the personal God of the Christians.

I would be willing to admit that God exists, if you would be willing to redefine the word God to include a quantum fluctuation.

[4gold]

I have never heard of the famed atheist Bernard Russell. But the argument he presents looks alarmingly similar to one made by prominent atheist Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970).

Whoops.

As stated, Russell's argument against the First Cause is still valid. If God is the cause of the universe, then what is the cause of God? If God can be uncaused, why cannot the universe be uncaused? The other weakness of the First Cause argument is that it only points to a deist god not to the personal God of the Christians.

I would be willing to admit that God exists, if you would be willing to redefine the word God to include a quantum fluctuation.

The basis for Russell's opinion is that there was no reason to believe the universe had a beginning. We now know that it does.

What would the basis now be for a universe without cause?

[QED]

I have to say that our imagination seems poverty stricken if we have to resort to the familiar model of a sentient agent going about creating things (like some inventor busy in his garage) to serve as a first cause. Starting a causal chain with something modelled on a product that only emerges after billions of years and countless more events is incomprehensible to me. We can offer a well-reasoned explanation for the emergence of sentient agents like us from far humbler beginnings, but not the other way around. Having an infinitely knowledgeable and powerful being as the primitive for everything else seems infinitely more elaborate than is actually necessary.

The universe is clearly evolving from a beginning of sorts. If it has a cause then I think it's pretty obvious that it lies outside the universe. We can call this external thing a meta-universe, a universe generator, a God etc. To be a God I would suggest it has to be shown to fit our familiar model of a sentient agent purposefully creating things. What do we know about our universe that can help us tell this apart from any other meta-universe (apart from scripture)?

Eternal Inflation as a cosmological model is functionally equivalent to a creator God in respect of its capacity for providence. Just because it provides for us does not imply that it is purposeful. I can't speak for Russel, but it seems obvious to me that we're no wiser since the discovery of the Big-Bang.

[4gold]

I have to say that our imagination seems poverty stricken if we have to resort to the familiar model of a sentient agent going about creating things (like some inventor busy in his garage) to serve as a first cause. Starting a causal chain with something modelled on a product that only emerges after billions of years and countless more events is incomprehensible to me. We can offer a well-reasoned explanation for the emergence of sentient agents like us from far humbler beginnings, but not the other way around. Having an infinitely knowledgeable and powerful being as the primitive for everything else seems infinitely more elaborate than is actually necessary.

The universe is clearly evolving from a beginning of sorts. If it has a cause then I think it's pretty obvious that it lies outside the universe. We can call this external thing a meta-universe, a universe generator, a God etc. To be a God I would suggest it has to be shown to fit our familiar model of a sentient agent purposefully creating things. What do we know about our universe that can help us tell this apart from any other meta-universe (apart from scripture)?

Eternal Inflation as a cosmological model is functionally equivalent to a creator God in respect of its capacity for providence. Just because it provides for us does not imply that it is purposeful. I can't speak for Russel, but it seems obvious to me that we're no wiser since the discovery of the Big-Bang.

It sounds to me that you disagree with Russell that there is no such thing as a First Cause, or that if there is, there is no reason to believe this universe has no cause.

I think the Big Bang put to rest that argument, which makes us at least a little wiser since its discovery. We now know this universe had a beginning, and as such, it had a cause. I'm not sure if we'll ever figure it out scientifically, or if it will remain eternally a philosophical question.

I agree with you that the Big Bang does not necessarily presuppose a sentient being, but it does seem to wipe out the argument that this universe is without cause.

[McCulloch]

It sounds to me that you disagree with Russell that there is no such thing as a First Cause, or that if there is, there is no reason to believe this universe has no cause.
I think the Big Bang put to rest that argument, which makes us at least a little wiser since its discovery. We now know this universe had a beginning, and as such, it had a cause. I'm not sure if we'll ever figure it out scientifically, or if it will remain eternally a philosophical question.
I agree with you that the Big Bang does not necessarily presuppose a sentient being, but it does seem to wipe out the argument that this universe is without cause.

The big bang combined with quantum physics raises the issue that there might be things with a beginning but no cause. If you want to define God as whatever it was that may have caused the universe, I would then be an agnostic rather than an atheist.

BTW, if you go with the First Cause argument, currently conventional cosmology and philosophy, here is a complete list of everything that you can know about God:

There may be a few other things, but I cannot think of them right now.

[QED]

It sounds to me that you disagree with Russell that there is no such thing as a First Cause, or that if there is, there is no reason to believe this universe has no cause.

As I think McCulloch is alluding to, out there's a breakdown in the applicability of common-sense when we study Quantum Mechanics. Causality is not what it is at the statistical levels we refer to as Classical Mechanics. The origins of this universe are intimately linked to the microscopic realm of the quantum so we are not on as firm a ground as the proponents of first cause theory might wish us to believe.

I think the Big Bang put to rest that argument, which makes us at least a little wiser since its discovery.

I can't fully agree with that as concepts like the Hawking Hartle no-boundary proposal demonstrate other possibilities.

We now know this universe had a beginning, and as such, it had a cause.

I tend to agree in the sense that it had a cause which led it to be suitable for life rather than a short-lived or otherwise inhospitable domain.

I'm not sure if we'll ever figure it out scientifically, or if it will remain eternally a philosophical question.

There will be testable predictions from suitable theories and as time goes on technology should evolve enough to perform those tests. As always, the best explanation will undoubtedly be in the form of a theory who's predictions match our observations.

I agree with you that the Big Bang does not necessarily presuppose a sentient being, but it does seem to wipe out the argument that this universe is without cause.

Looking for a cause that terminates an otherwise infinite regress is probably a hopeless task. Even if we accepted Hawking and Hartle's ideas, we can ask why the cosmos is that way rather than some other. What we can do though is draw some lines around concepts like purpose and meaning if we can manage to peel back causality far enough.

[QED]

As stated, Russell's argument against the First Cause is still valid. If God is the cause of the universe, then what is the cause of God? If God can be uncaused, why cannot the universe be uncaused?

I'd just like to add that the Big-Bang does not rule out our universe being uncaused. Any precedent cause (and there are plenty of cosmological models that account for this) may equally well lay claim to the title of "uncaused" as God may do.

[4gold]

I can't fully agree with that as concepts like the Hawking Hartle no-boundary proposal demonstrate other possibilities.

But even this theory proposes that this universe had a beginning.

Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition.

The Hawking-Hartle theory begins moments after the Big Bang, because there are no deterministic laws of physics before the Big Bang. Russell made his comments at a time when there was no reason to believe the universe had a beginning. We now realize that it does.

[4gold]

The big bang combined with quantum physics raises the issue that there might be things with a beginning but no cause. If you want to define God as whatever it was that may have caused the universe, I would then be an agnostic rather than an atheist.

If something has a beginning, it has to have a cause. That cause may be uncaused, but anything with a beginning has a cause.

If God has no beginning, he has no cause. If the universe has a beginning, it has a cause.