A response to criticism on materialism and the Big Bang

By Peter Symon

I appreciate the responses to my articles from Rafael Pla-Lopez
(University of Valencia) and George Tsoupros (University of
Melbourne) and realise that I made a mistake in attributing the
Big Bang theory of the universe solely to those who adhere to a
supernatural creation and who approach nature from a
philosophical point of view which is opposed to materialism.
Furthermore, conclusions were drawn on the basis of materialism
alone whereas it is necessary to substantiate assertions with
scientific fact.

The criticism of my first two articles by Rafael Pla-Lopez of the
University of Valencia (Spain) and George Tsoupros of Melbourne
University have both made important points.

George Tsoupros writes: "To attack scientific theories rather
than their ideologically influenced epistemological and
philosophical interpretation is to provide potential grounds for
further attacks against materialism and dialectics."

George writes: "The author of the two articles claims
that recent observational discoveries have undermined the Big
Bang theory of the creation of the universe. Not so! They are
simply indicative of a discrepancy between the theory itself and
certain consolidated but quite arbitrary and external assumptions
concerning the value of certain parameters in the theory."

Rafael Pla-Lopez says: "The theory of the Big Bang does not
imply the existence of God ... the existence of a beginning of the
world is a scientific question which can be scientifically
argued. If it implied the existence of God, this existence could
be scientifically proved."

Despite the fact that the Big Bang theory is by no means yet
proven and my own reservation, voiced in my first articles, that
"Materialism for its part, does not rule out the possibility of
huge cosmic events, including 'big bangs' but rejects both the
super-natural and 'something out of nothing' explanations" -- the
general points of their criticisms are accepted.

I think that the main point to be learnt is that every theory has
to be proven in practice. Theory and practice must be linked in
one unity. Neither a supernatural creation nor the Big Bang
theory, which is supported by many scientists, can be repudiated
or sustained by simply asserting philosophical arguments. As
Rafael Pla-Lopez says -- "it is a scientific question".

But what is this science that enables us to understand and
interpret the world in all its magnitude and complexity? Karl
Marx was upholding the scientific method when he wrote: "Truth
includes not only the result but also the path to it. The
investigation of truth must itself be true; true investigation is
developed truth, the dispersed elements of which are brought
together in the results." (K Marx: "Comments on the latest Prussian
Censorship Instructions")

The problem for many, such as myself, who are not physicists,
mathematicians or cosmologists, is that the presentation of the
Big Bang theory is presented in the mass media and much
supposedly scientific literature (such as the books of Paul
Davies) in the context of a super-natural creation.

Furthermore, Paul Davies and John Gribbin use the big bang theory
to launch a substantial denunciation of materialism as I
attempted to present in my first two articles.

It also seems to be a major element in the book by Stephen
Hawking, "A Short History of Time" quoted by George Tsoupros
and referred to extensively in the article by Tim Wheeler.

I find Stephen Hawking far more speculative on the question of
creation than is suggested by the quotation given by George
Tsoupros in his article. He quotes Hawking concluding some
observations by writing: "What place then for a creator?"

In the same book Hawking also writes: "One possible answer is to
say that God chose the initial configuration of the universe for
reasons that we cannot hope to understand ... The whole history
of science has been the gradual realisation that events do not
happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain
underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired."
(Ibid p. 129)

And again: "It would be very difficult to explain why the
universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of
a God who intended to create beings like us." (Ibid p 134)

The first part of the paragraph already quoted by George Tsoupros
says: "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface
without boundary also has profound implications for the role of
God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of
scientific theories in describing events, most people have come
to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a
set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these
laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should
have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God
to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off". Then
follow the sentences already quoted by George Tsoupros: "So long
as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a
creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained,
having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor
end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (Ibid p
149)

It may be that Stephen Hawking is as Rafael Pla-Lopez suggests,
"explicitly atheist" but the above quotations seem to be rather
equivocal and speculative.

To do justice to Stephen Hawking he also writes, in recounting his
visit to the Vatican: "I was glad then that he (the Pope -
PS) did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the
conference -- the possibility that space-time was finite but had
no boundary which means that it had no beginning, no moment of
Creation." (Ibid p 122)

What is required, in my opinion, is a forthright substantiation
of materialism on the basis of scientific research and
dialectical materialism in the manner argued by such great
scientists and philosophers as Marx and Engels.

Do we have any modern-day counterparts of JBS Haldane and JD
Bernal referred to in the article of Tim Wheeler?

The fact that the scientific research of the physicists,
cosmologists and mathematicians can, in effect, be hijacked by
the propagandists of a supernatural creation in the popular media
is a commentary on their initiative and flexibility. On the other
hand, the work of upholding and elaborating dialectical
materialism in the public domain seems to be lagging.

The battle between idealist and materialist philosophies has been
going on for millennia and is, therefore, not of recent origin.
This great contest is, I think, being slowly won by the
scientists (who as Rafael suggests are mostly "spontaneous
materialists") and the materialists who now have at their
disposal the powerful searchlight of dialectical materialism.

We cannot, therefore, allow Paul Davies' brazen declaration:
"Materialism is dead", to go unchallenged.

Rafael Pla-Lopez says that one must "distinguish between
scientists and ideologists who interpret these results", and
"that the general discussion about the Big Bang should be made in
the field of scientific research, without philosophical
prejudices and without mixing this scientific debate with the
philosophical debate between materialism and idealism."

This seems to suggest a separation of general science and
philosophy, perhaps even a warning sign -- "Philosophers keep
out!" Yet Rafael himself suggests a connection between science
and materialism when he writes that most scientists are
"spontaneous materialists".

Dialectical materialism was developed and substantiated by the
scientific developments of the last several centuries. This
interconnection was elaborated by Engels in "Herr Duhring's
Revolution in Science" (usually referred to as "Anti-Duhring")
and in his "Dialectics of Nature".

Tracing the historical development of science Engels writes: "In
order to understand these details (of the world around us - PS),
we must detach them from their natural or historical connection
and examine each one separately, its nature, special
causes, effects, etc .... But this method of work has also left
us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes
in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole;
of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constants, not as
essentially variables; in their death, not in their life."
(M-E Col. Wks Vol 25 p 22)

Engels goes on: "Modern materialism embraces the more recent
discoveries of natural science, according to which nature also
has its history in time ..."
(Ibid p 25)

And, "Philosophical principles consequently provide the final
supplement required by the sciences in order to become a uniform
system by which nature and human life can be explained."
(Ibid p 33)

Of course, the search for knowledge and truth must proceed by the
investigation of material reality. It is a task, however, that
can never be completed for the very good and fundamental reason
that the constant motion of things produces new relationships,
conditions, forces, influences, contradictions, etc in an
infinite variety.

Only the materiality (in all its forms) of the world around us,
its constant change and its interconnectedness remain constants.

These are philosophical principles or generalisations which have
been derived by a myriad of scientific investigations of the
world around us.

George Tsoupros in his critique makes the point "that 'humanity's
difficulty' to conceive of an infinite universe does not simply
lie in humanity's finite span as Peter Symon suggests. It lies in
the material conditions of humanity's existence."

I agree with this assertion. Humankind's ideas, analysis,
interpretation of the universe, that is, humankind's philosophy,
is rooted in material life which includes many, many factors,
including the experience of the life/death cycle of all things.

George continues: "The ideological dominance of positivism and
mysticism today is indicative of a relation of forces severely
unfavourable to the development of a revolutionary movement which
would be the only force capable of dispelling all mysticism in
social life through a rational understanding of the world. Modern
science provides the potential for such an understanding".

I would add that "modern science" (unless it is also intended to
include dialectical materialism and its propagation) will not, on
its own, push back the current resurgence of mysticism and the
flexibility of a Pope who is now prepared to admit evolution but
within a supernatural context.

Scientific knowledge and achievement has never been greater nor
more rapid, yet it is in this situation that an escape to
mysticism, obscurantism and various religious cults is
widespread.

Is it that scientific achievements for many are beyond
comprehension are destabilising and frightening? If so, it
suggests the need for a science which can be understood and be
seen as a friendly science. Unfortunately, much science is used
against humanity -- and that not only goes for nuclear weapons.

An offensive by scientists in all fields and the revolutionary
organisations of the labour movement, using both the achievements
of modern science and the enlightenment brought by dialectical
materialism, provides the means to push back the mystic tide.

There are no grounds for pessimism despite the setbacks for
Marxism and revolutionary movements in the last period. If one
takes an historical view of things the steady progress of
humanity can clearly be seen.

On the other hand, capitalism is beset by contradictions and
crisis in all fields -- economic, political, social and
ideological. It continues to create its own gravediggers while
scientific advances and the truth of dialectical materialism
undermine it ideologically. Mysticism is being pushed more and
more to the outer boundaries by the advance of knowledge.

The conditions are steadily maturing which will allow humankind
to take the step that Engels foresaw -- the step from barbarism
to civilisation -- or put another way, "humanity's leap from the
kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom".
(M-E Coll Wks Vol 25 p 270)
          

The Guardian                 | Phone: (02) 9212.6855
65 Campbell Street           | Fax: (02) 9281.5795
Surry Hills.      2010       | Email:guardian@peg.apc.org