What do you think?
Rate this book
Modern Cosmology & Philosophy
"...engaging…a fascinating mix of opinion and scientific/philosophic discussion...quite readable and enjoyable...a book that should be in one’s library."-Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Did the universe originate from a "big bang" as argued by leading astrophysicists and others? Or does some other theory more accurately describe its beginnings? Are there other forms of life in our universe? What about other universes? Was our universe specially formed to support life? Does our universe have a purpose? What are the conditions under which life begins, evolves, and how does it become extinct?
These questions propel Modern Cosmology & Philosophy as the leading text in this hotly debated area where science and philosophy meet. Edited with an introduction by noted scholar John Leslie, this volume offers superb selections on modern cosmology, relativistic theories of the universe, the Big Bang, the problem of God and creation, cosmology and verifiability, coincidences, origins and evolution, multiple universe theories, infinity, chaos, life forms, the end of time, and the limits of our knowledge.
This volume includes work by H. Bondi, William Lane Craig, Paul Davies, R. H. Dicke, G. F. R. Ellis, Stephen Jay Gould, Adolf Grunbaum, Heinz R. Pagels, Sir Martin Rees, Quentin Smith, Richard Swinburne, and others.
These questions propel Modern Cosmology & Philosophy as the leading text in this hotly debated area where science and philosophy meet. Edited with an introduction by noted scholar John Leslie, this volume offers superb selections on modern cosmology, relativistic theories of the universe, the Big Bang, the problem of God and creation, cosmology and verifiability, coincidences, origins and evolution, multiple universe theories, infinity, chaos, life forms, the end of time, and the limits of our knowledge.
This volume includes work by H. Bondi, William Lane Craig, Paul Davies, R. H. Dicke, G. F. R. Ellis, Stephen Jay Gould, Adolf Grunbaum, Heinz R. Pagels, Sir Martin Rees, Quentin Smith, Richard Swinburne, and others.
- GenresScience
Paperback
First published November 1, 1998
1 person is currently reading
33 people want to read
About the author
John A. Leslie
9 books16 followersJohn Andrew Leslie (born August 2, 1940) is a Canadian philosopher. He was educated at Wadham College, Oxford, earning his B.A. in English Literature in 1962 and his M.Litt. in Classics in 1968. He is currently Professor emeritus at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, Canada.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 24, 2024
A BROAD COLLECTION OF WRITINGS ABOUT MODERN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES
Editor John Andrew Leslie (born 1940) is a Canadian philosopher, who is currently Professor emeritus at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, Canada.
This 1998 book is a revision of the 1990 volume, 'Physical Cosmology & Philosophy.' The book contains writings by George Gamow, Herman Bondi, Richard Swinburne, Stephen Jay Gould, Paul Davies, Andrei Linde, William Lane Craig, Martin Rees, and many others.
The Preface to the first edition explains, “Of the … Readings collected together here, the great majority are within the reach of the general reader. A few cannot be fully understood without a knowledge of mathematics; but remember, it was their philosophical importance and not their technicalities which earned them their place in this volume, and the Introduction is a guide to the philosophical points they raise. Two of the Readings---the ones from Richard Swinburne and George Gale---were generated expressly for this volume. The others have all been in print earlier.”
The Introduction begins with the statement, “this book asks four main questions: Was there a Big Bang, and if so, how can we know it? Is our universe ‘fine-tuned’ in ways that make it especially suited to living beings? May there exist many huge, largely separate, and markedly different cosmic regions, perhaps worth calling ‘universes’ and perhaps only rarely having properties that allow living beings to evolve? And finally, mow much life is there in the cosmos?”
George Gamow ends his 1954 essay, “Thus we conclude that our Universe has existed for an eternity of time, that until about five billion years ago it was collapsing uniformly from a state of infinite rarefaction; that five billion years ago it arrived at a state of maximum compression… and that the Universe is now on the rebound, dispersing irreversibly toward a state of infinite rarefaction… Any inquisitive person is bound to ask, ‘What was the Universe like while it was collapsing?’ … Transformation of particles must have occurred so rapidly during that state that the outcome was determined entirely by the conditions at that time rather than by what had gone on before. Thus from the physical point of view we must forget entirely about the pre-collapse period and try to explain all things on the basis of facts which are no older than five billion years old---plus or minus five per cent.” (Pg. 69)
W.B. Bonner asserts, “A singularity in the mathematics describing a physical problem is usually an indicator of the breakdown of the theory, and the physicist’s normal response is to try to get a better one. This procedure has not generally been followed in cosmology, and some scientists have identified the singularity at the start of the expansion with God, and thought that at this moment he created the universe. It seems to me highly improper to introduce God to solve our scientific problems. There is no place in science for miraculous interventions of this sort; and there is a danger for those who believe in God, in identifying him with singularities in differential equations, lest the need for him disappear with improved mathematics.” (Pg. 72-73)
Adolf Grünbaum argues, “if literally EVERYTHING---including the universe as a whole---has a cause to which it owes either its state-of-being or even its very existence, it becomes imperative to ask for the CAUSE of God’s state-of-being or even existence. Why should He be an uncaused cause?... those who try to exempt God from their universal causal assertion treat causation like a hired carriage that is dismissed upon reaching its desired destination.” (Pg. 107)
B.J. Carr says, “it cannot be denied that there are a number of remarkable coincidences in nature and these do warrant some sort of explanation. The point is, not that there are coincidences, but that these coincidences are just what is required for life. It is this deeper level of coincidence which makes the Anthropic Principle so striking.” (Pg. 157) He adds, “Both the ‘Many Worlds’ and ‘Many Cycles’ explanations for the Anthropic Principle are rather bizarre and I would not recommend that either be taken too seriously. My reason for mentioning them is to emphasize that it is conceivable the Anthropic Principle may one day be given a physical basis. But what if it transpires that there is no satisfactory physical explanation? In this case, one would have to conclude either that the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are ONLY coincidences or that the universe was indeed tailor-made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor!” (Pg. 159)
Heinz Pagels contends, “Why… do some scientists continue to honor the anthropic principle with their attention? At least part of the answer is beyond the reach of scientific analysis, and lies somewhere in the realm of personal taste and individual psychology. Still, we can speculate. Perhaps the frustration and exasperation intrinsic to searching for a complete account of the cosmic parameters have gotten the better of some physicists and cosmologists… It is easier to convey a simple redundancy… than to grapple with the abstract mathematical arguments following from the unified field theories. In many respects, the anthropic principle is the lazy man’s approach to science.” (Pg. 185-186)
Paul Davies observes, “The vacuum is nature’s miraculous jar of energy. There is in principle no limit to how much energy can be self-generated by inflationary expansion. It is a revolutionary result at total variance with the centuries-old tradition that ‘nothing come out of nothing.’ … The idea of creation out of nothing has, until recently, belonged solely to the province of religion. Christians have long believed that God created the universe out of nothing, but the possibility that all the cosmic matter and energy might appear spontaneously as a result of purely physical processes would have been regarded as utterly untenable by scientists only a decade ago.” (Pg. 237)
G.F.R. Ellis admits, “What we run up against time and again is the fundamental feature of the uniqueness of the Universe, and the problems this gives rise to as we try to unravel its nature… We cannot perform the kinds of experiments that experimental sciences rely on… and we cannot even do the kinds of comparisons with similar objects that underlie the other historical sciences. We can only observe what is there, and compare predictions with observations… We then choose between the theories on the basis of (non-verifiable) philosophical criteria… Are such criteria themselves subject to experimental test?... past evidence shows what has worked well in general… and this plays a considerable role in our choice. However, cosmology is different from all other disciplines; in the end an unavoidable choice must be made that is essentially philosophical and not subject to experimental test. We should use broad criteria that take into account the whole range of human experience, and not just that which can be scientifically described.” (Pg. 284-285)
In his own essay, John Leslie states, “it is not enough to say that life-permitting universe would quite probably occur somewhere, given sufficiently many, sufficiently varied universes. One needs the further point that HERE, the universe where we find ourselves, cannot … be a life-excluding universe. It has to be life-permitting. Yet remember always that this does not mean that it HAD TO BECOME life-permitting: that it had, for example, been sure from the very first moment of its existence that the dice of quantum indeterminism WOULD fall in such a way that early symmetry-breakings occurred life-permittingly.” (Pg. 298)
In his second essay, Paul Davies says, “Now you may think I have written God entirely out of the picture. Who needs a God when the laws of physics can do such a splendid job? But we are bound to return to that burning question: Where do the laws of physics come from? And why THOSE laws rather than some other set? Most especially: Why a set of laws that drives the searing, featureless gases coughed out of the big bang, towards life and consciousness and intelligence and cultural activities such as religion, art, mathematics and science?” (Pg. 314) He continues, “The idea of a God who is just another force or agency at work in nature, is profoundly uninspiring. To me, the true miracle of nature is to be found in the ingenious and unswerving lawfulness of the cosmos, a lawfulness that permits complex order to emerge from chaos, life to emerge from inanimate matter, and consciousness to emerge from life, without the need for the occasional supernatural prod; a lawfulness that produces beings who not only ask great questions of existence, but who, through science and other methods of enquiry, are even beginning to find answers.” (Pg. 315-316)
This is a wide-ranging, and thought-provoking collection of essays, from a diverse body of writers. It will be of great interest to anyone interested in the “philosophical” implications of modern cosmology.
Editor John Andrew Leslie (born 1940) is a Canadian philosopher, who is currently Professor emeritus at the University of Guelph, in Ontario, Canada.
This 1998 book is a revision of the 1990 volume, 'Physical Cosmology & Philosophy.' The book contains writings by George Gamow, Herman Bondi, Richard Swinburne, Stephen Jay Gould, Paul Davies, Andrei Linde, William Lane Craig, Martin Rees, and many others.
The Preface to the first edition explains, “Of the … Readings collected together here, the great majority are within the reach of the general reader. A few cannot be fully understood without a knowledge of mathematics; but remember, it was their philosophical importance and not their technicalities which earned them their place in this volume, and the Introduction is a guide to the philosophical points they raise. Two of the Readings---the ones from Richard Swinburne and George Gale---were generated expressly for this volume. The others have all been in print earlier.”
The Introduction begins with the statement, “this book asks four main questions: Was there a Big Bang, and if so, how can we know it? Is our universe ‘fine-tuned’ in ways that make it especially suited to living beings? May there exist many huge, largely separate, and markedly different cosmic regions, perhaps worth calling ‘universes’ and perhaps only rarely having properties that allow living beings to evolve? And finally, mow much life is there in the cosmos?”
George Gamow ends his 1954 essay, “Thus we conclude that our Universe has existed for an eternity of time, that until about five billion years ago it was collapsing uniformly from a state of infinite rarefaction; that five billion years ago it arrived at a state of maximum compression… and that the Universe is now on the rebound, dispersing irreversibly toward a state of infinite rarefaction… Any inquisitive person is bound to ask, ‘What was the Universe like while it was collapsing?’ … Transformation of particles must have occurred so rapidly during that state that the outcome was determined entirely by the conditions at that time rather than by what had gone on before. Thus from the physical point of view we must forget entirely about the pre-collapse period and try to explain all things on the basis of facts which are no older than five billion years old---plus or minus five per cent.” (Pg. 69)
W.B. Bonner asserts, “A singularity in the mathematics describing a physical problem is usually an indicator of the breakdown of the theory, and the physicist’s normal response is to try to get a better one. This procedure has not generally been followed in cosmology, and some scientists have identified the singularity at the start of the expansion with God, and thought that at this moment he created the universe. It seems to me highly improper to introduce God to solve our scientific problems. There is no place in science for miraculous interventions of this sort; and there is a danger for those who believe in God, in identifying him with singularities in differential equations, lest the need for him disappear with improved mathematics.” (Pg. 72-73)
Adolf Grünbaum argues, “if literally EVERYTHING---including the universe as a whole---has a cause to which it owes either its state-of-being or even its very existence, it becomes imperative to ask for the CAUSE of God’s state-of-being or even existence. Why should He be an uncaused cause?... those who try to exempt God from their universal causal assertion treat causation like a hired carriage that is dismissed upon reaching its desired destination.” (Pg. 107)
B.J. Carr says, “it cannot be denied that there are a number of remarkable coincidences in nature and these do warrant some sort of explanation. The point is, not that there are coincidences, but that these coincidences are just what is required for life. It is this deeper level of coincidence which makes the Anthropic Principle so striking.” (Pg. 157) He adds, “Both the ‘Many Worlds’ and ‘Many Cycles’ explanations for the Anthropic Principle are rather bizarre and I would not recommend that either be taken too seriously. My reason for mentioning them is to emphasize that it is conceivable the Anthropic Principle may one day be given a physical basis. But what if it transpires that there is no satisfactory physical explanation? In this case, one would have to conclude either that the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are ONLY coincidences or that the universe was indeed tailor-made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor!” (Pg. 159)
Heinz Pagels contends, “Why… do some scientists continue to honor the anthropic principle with their attention? At least part of the answer is beyond the reach of scientific analysis, and lies somewhere in the realm of personal taste and individual psychology. Still, we can speculate. Perhaps the frustration and exasperation intrinsic to searching for a complete account of the cosmic parameters have gotten the better of some physicists and cosmologists… It is easier to convey a simple redundancy… than to grapple with the abstract mathematical arguments following from the unified field theories. In many respects, the anthropic principle is the lazy man’s approach to science.” (Pg. 185-186)
Paul Davies observes, “The vacuum is nature’s miraculous jar of energy. There is in principle no limit to how much energy can be self-generated by inflationary expansion. It is a revolutionary result at total variance with the centuries-old tradition that ‘nothing come out of nothing.’ … The idea of creation out of nothing has, until recently, belonged solely to the province of religion. Christians have long believed that God created the universe out of nothing, but the possibility that all the cosmic matter and energy might appear spontaneously as a result of purely physical processes would have been regarded as utterly untenable by scientists only a decade ago.” (Pg. 237)
G.F.R. Ellis admits, “What we run up against time and again is the fundamental feature of the uniqueness of the Universe, and the problems this gives rise to as we try to unravel its nature… We cannot perform the kinds of experiments that experimental sciences rely on… and we cannot even do the kinds of comparisons with similar objects that underlie the other historical sciences. We can only observe what is there, and compare predictions with observations… We then choose between the theories on the basis of (non-verifiable) philosophical criteria… Are such criteria themselves subject to experimental test?... past evidence shows what has worked well in general… and this plays a considerable role in our choice. However, cosmology is different from all other disciplines; in the end an unavoidable choice must be made that is essentially philosophical and not subject to experimental test. We should use broad criteria that take into account the whole range of human experience, and not just that which can be scientifically described.” (Pg. 284-285)
In his own essay, John Leslie states, “it is not enough to say that life-permitting universe would quite probably occur somewhere, given sufficiently many, sufficiently varied universes. One needs the further point that HERE, the universe where we find ourselves, cannot … be a life-excluding universe. It has to be life-permitting. Yet remember always that this does not mean that it HAD TO BECOME life-permitting: that it had, for example, been sure from the very first moment of its existence that the dice of quantum indeterminism WOULD fall in such a way that early symmetry-breakings occurred life-permittingly.” (Pg. 298)
In his second essay, Paul Davies says, “Now you may think I have written God entirely out of the picture. Who needs a God when the laws of physics can do such a splendid job? But we are bound to return to that burning question: Where do the laws of physics come from? And why THOSE laws rather than some other set? Most especially: Why a set of laws that drives the searing, featureless gases coughed out of the big bang, towards life and consciousness and intelligence and cultural activities such as religion, art, mathematics and science?” (Pg. 314) He continues, “The idea of a God who is just another force or agency at work in nature, is profoundly uninspiring. To me, the true miracle of nature is to be found in the ingenious and unswerving lawfulness of the cosmos, a lawfulness that permits complex order to emerge from chaos, life to emerge from inanimate matter, and consciousness to emerge from life, without the need for the occasional supernatural prod; a lawfulness that produces beings who not only ask great questions of existence, but who, through science and other methods of enquiry, are even beginning to find answers.” (Pg. 315-316)
This is a wide-ranging, and thought-provoking collection of essays, from a diverse body of writers. It will be of great interest to anyone interested in the “philosophical” implications of modern cosmology.
Displaying 1 of 1 review