I AM IN AWE OF TWO MYSTERIES:
'WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST?'
ANYTHING AT ALL!
AND 'DOES GOD EXIST?' -
SOME KIND OF SUPREME BEING?
ARE THESE TWO MYSTERIES RELATED?
IS THE REASON WHY ANYTHING AT
ALL EXISTS - THE REASON WHY
THERE IS NOT NOTHING
- BECAUSE GOD EXISTS?
AND BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE
FOR GOD NOT TO EXIST?
BUT IS THE TRADITIONAL,
PERSONAL GOD THE ONLY KIND
OF SUPREME BEING?
WHAT ELSE COULD BE
A "GROUND OF BEING?"
SURELY THERE IS NOT NOTHING.
WHY GOD, NOT NOTHING?
I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO
TRY TO FIND OUT.
I CANNOT ESCAPE THESE
DEEP QUESTIONS OF EXISTENCE -
FOR A LIFETIME,
THEY HAVE HAUNTED ME.
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING
RATHER THAN NOTHING?
DOES GOD EXIST?
TO BEGIN, I TURN TO MY
OLD FRIEND, THE PHILOSOPHER
JOHN LESLIE, EDITOR OF
THE MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE:
WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?
WELL, MAYBE ONE WAY IS TO
MENTION FIVE MAIN REACTIONS
PEOPLE COULD HAVE TO THE
QUESTION OF EXISTENCE AND ONE OF
THEM IS TO SAY THAT THE IDEA OF
A BLANK INSTEAD OF THE UNIVERSE
IS JUST AN ABSURD IDEA.
ANOTHER IS TO SAY THAT
ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION IS
NEEDED FOR WHY THE WORLD EXISTS.
A THIRD IS TO SAY
IT'S A MATTER OF CHANCE.
ANOTHER IS TO SAY THAT VALUE IS
SOMEHOW BEHIND THE EXISTENCE OF
THE WORLD; THE WORLD EXISTS
BECAUSE IT OUGHT TO EXIST.
AND THEN SOME PEOPLE
THINK THAT THERE'S A MIND
BEHIND THE UNIVERSE.
"A MIND BEHIND THE UNIVERSE"?
MANY ASSUME THIS MIND IS 'GOD'.
SO, IS GOD THE REASON
WHY THERE IS SOMETHING
RATHER THAN NOTHING?
I ASK A SCIENCE-AND-RELIGION
PIONEER, A QUANTUM PHYSICIST WHO
BECAME AN ANGLICAN
PRIEST - JOHN POLKINGHORNE.
JOHN, PHYSICISTS TALK
ABOUT A THEORY OF EVERYTHING.
THEOLOGIANS TALK
ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
BUT REALLY, THERE'S A QUESTION
THAT'S EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTAL
THAN BOTH OF THOSE, AND THAT'S,
WHY ANYTHING AT ALL - WHY IS
THERE SOMETHING RATHER
THAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?
I THINK IT IS A DEEP QUESTION,
AND INTERESTINGLY, IT'S THE
QUESTION THAT THE THEOLOGICAL
DOCTRINE OF CREATION IS REALLY
SEEKING TO ADDRESS.
THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION ISN'T
CONCERNED WITH HOW, SIMPLY,
HOW THINGS BEGAN.
IT ISN'T ANSWERING THE QUESTION,
'WHO LIT THE BLUE TOUCH PAPER OR
THE BIG BANG?' IT IS TRYING TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION, 'WHY IS
THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN
NOTHING - WHY DOES THIS WORLD
EXIST IN ITS CHARACTER, ITS
FRUITFULNESS, ITS ORDER ITS
STRANGENESS AND SO ON?'
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THOUGH,
AREN'T WE DEALING WITH ONE KIND
OF BRUTE FACT OR ANOTHER - THE
BRUTE FACT OF GOD, AS HAVING
SELF-EXISTENCE, AND THE BRUTE
FACT OF THE MATERIAL WORLD,
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, AS
HAVING SOME KIND OF BRUTE
FACT SELF-EXISTENCE?
IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE
- ONE OR THE OTHER?
CERTAINLY, IN WESTERN THINKING,
THOSE HAVE BEEN THE TWO BROAD
ALTERNATIVES THAT
ARE BEING CONSIDERED.
I DO THINK THAT A REDUCTIVE
MATERIALISM, IN SOME WAYS, SAYS,
WELL, YOU'RE JUST A COLLECTION
OF ATOMS AND MOLECULES.
THAT DOESN'T EXPLAIN A VERY
LARGE NUMBER OF THINGS ABOUT
HUMAN - DOESN'T EXPLAIN
OUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES,
AND OUR EXPERIENCES
OF VALUE AND BEAUTY.
WHAT I'M ARGUING IS THAT THE
LAWS OF NATURE HAVE A CHARACTER
THAT DOESN'T MAKE THEM A
SATISFACTORY STOPPING POINT IN
THIS BACKWARD ARGUMENT.
BUT THE IDEA OF A SELF-EXISTENT
BEING, WITH DIVINE POWER AND
DIVINE PURPOSE, DIVINE
MIND, DOES SEEM TO ME A
SATISFACTORY STOPPING POINT.
"A SATISFYING STOPPING POINT".
THAT'S WHAT I'D WANT
TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE.
BUT HERE'S THE PROBLEM, WHAT
MAY BE SATISFYING MAY NOT BE
SATISFACTORY - SUPERSTITION
CAN BE SATISFYING,
BUT SURELY NOT SATISFACTORY.
RELIGION THROUGH REVELATION
MAY BE ONE WAY OF DISCERNING
EXISTENCE - BUT REVELATION
IS A DISPUTED WAY.
REASON, AN UNDISPUTED WAY.
HOW TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN REASON AND REVELATION?
CAN THE POWERS OF REASON ALONE,
WITHOUT REVELATION, ADDRESS THIS
ULTIMATE QUESTION - WHY IS THERE
SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?
I ASK A LEADING PHILOSOPHER OF
METAPHYSICS - WHO BELIEVES IN
GOD - PETER VAN INWAGEN.
I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE
QUESTION BUT THE ANSWER THAT
I BELIEVE IN COMES
FROM REVEALED RELIGION.
THAT GOD EXISTS NECESSARILY.
I THINK THAT HE HAS REVEALED
HIS EXISTENCE AND IN FACT HIS
NECESSARY EXISTENCE
TO HUMAN BEINGS.
HOW WOULD YOU SAY THAT
SCRIPTURALLY IN ANY SENSE OF
WHATEVER, THAT GOD'S EXISTENCE,
NOW WAS YOU KNOW PRIMORDIAL,
EVERYTHING CAME FROM GOD.
THOSE CAN ALL BE TRUE AND GOD'S
EXISTENCE STILL NOT BE NECESSARY
IN A LOGICAL SENSE.
YOU NOTICE IN SCRIPTURE THERE
IS NO DISCUSSION OF WHY GOD
EXISTS AT ALL.
YOU COULD TAKE THE BLANKNESS OF
THE BIBLE ON THIS QUESTION AS
SAYING THAT THE QUESTION
IS SOMEHOW ILLEGITIMATE.
BUT I THINK THE REAL REVELATION
WOULD OCCUR IN THE COURSE OF THE
HISTORY OF THE INTELLECTUAL
DEVELOPMENT OF THEISM.
BUT, OUTSIDE THAT TRADITION
HOWEVER, THERE REMAINS THE
FASCINATING TECHNICAL QUESTION
OF WHAT CAN BE SAID ABOUT THIS
JUST BY THINKING ABOUT IT?
THERE HAVE BEEN PHILOSOPHICAL
ARGUMENTS THAT WOULD SHOW THAT
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THERE TO BE NOTHING.
DESCARTES ONTOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT, THE MODERN
MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
ALL THESE PURPORT TO PROVE THE
EXISTENCE OF A NECESSARY BEING
SIMPLY BY EXAMINING THE CONCEPT.
THEN YOU HAVE THE COSMOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT WHICH ATTEMPTS TO
PRODUCE THE SAME CONCLUSION BUT
BY REASONING FROM THE EXISTENCE
OF CONTINGENT BEINGS, THE THINGS
LIKE US THAT COULD FAIL TO EXIST
IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE
THIS WEAK GRIP ON EXISTENCE THIS
COULD ONLY BE BECAUSE THERE'S
SOMETHING THAT HAS A STRONGER
GRIP ON EXISTENCE THAT
LENDS EXISTENCE TO THEM.
NOW SOME VERSIONS OF THE
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT DEPEND ON
A PRINCIPLE CALLED THE
PRINCIPLE SUFFICIENT REASON.
THAT EVERYTHING HAS A
REALLY SATISFYING EXPLANATION.
EVERYTHING.
UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW,
THAT PRINCIPLE SEEMS TO
HAVE UNTOWARD CONCLUSIONS.
IT'S NOT HARD TO GET THE
CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A
NECESSARY BEING OUT OF IT.
THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE
FOR THERE TO BE NOTHING.
BUT THEN IT'S ALSO NOT HARD TO
GET OUT OF THE CONCLUSION THAT
EVERYTHING IS NECESSARY.
EVEN THE POSITION OF
THIS TABLE AT THIS MOMENT.
WELL NATURALLY IF EVERYTHING IS
NECESSARILY AND SOMETHING EXISTS
THEN IT'S NECESSARY THAT
SOMETHING EXISTS AND IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THERE TO BE NOTHING.
THE ATTACK ON THE PRINCIPLE OF
SUFFICIENT REASON SAYS THAT IT
IS ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE FOR
EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD, BUT IT
IS NOT LEGITIMATE TO TALK
ABOUT THE WORLD IN ITS ENTIRETY.
THAT'S CERTAINLY
WHAT KANT SAID ABOUT IT.
ANOTHER POINT IS THIS; IT SAYS
EVERYTHING HAS AN EXPLANATION,
BUT THEN JUST TAKE EVERYTHING,
THEN ALL THE CONTINGENT
PROPOSITIONS, CONJOIN THEM
INTO ONE GREAT BIG PROPOSITION.
WHAT'S THE EXPLANATION
FOR THE TRUTH OF THAT?
WELL IT CAN'T BE SOME
NECESSARY PROPOSITION BECAUSE A
NECESSARILY TRUE PROPOSITION CAN
NEVER EXPLAIN WHY A CONTINGENT
PROPOSITION IS TRUE, AND
IT CAN'T BE A CONTINGENT
PROPOSITION BECAUSE
IT'S IN THERE.
IT WOULD EXPLAIN ITSELF, AND
EVERY PROPOSITION HAS TO BE
EITHER NECESSARY OR CONTINGENT,
SO YOU GET A CONTRADICTION.
SO ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
NOT VERY HELPFUL.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT NOT VERY
HOPEFUL BECAUSE OF THE PRINCIPLE
OF SUFFICIENT REASON.
THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU WEAKEN
THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT
REASON IN SUCH A WAY SO THAT
IT DOESN'T HAVE REALLY ABSURD
CONSEQUENCES, LIKE EVERY
PROPOSITION IS NECESSARY.
BUT IT'LL STILL DO
SOME METAPHYSICAL WORK.
NOW HERE'S A SUGGESTION.
IF THERE'S AN EXPLANATION FOR
THINGS OF A CERTAIN KIND, AND
IT'S CONTINGENT THAT THERE
ARE THINGS OF THAT KIND THAT
EXPLANATION HAS TO APPEAL TO
SOMETHING OUTSIDE THAT KIND.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S AN
EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF
ELEPHANTS, IT HAS TO
INCLUDE SOME NON-ELEPHANTS.
IT CAN'T BE THAT THE BIG
ELEPHANT CREATED ALL THE LITTLE
ELEPHANTS, BECAUSE YOU'D
STILL HAVE THE BIG ELEPHANT
TO START WITH.
SO MAYBE GOD, MAYBE ATOMS, MAYBE
THE EVOLUTIONARY PRECURSORS OF
ELEPHANTS, SOMETHING OUTSIDE
THE CLASS OF ELEPHANTS HAS
TO FIGURE IN.
WELL NOW, SUPPOSE JUST
THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THERE
TO BE SOMETHING.
SO THAT MEANS THERE'S
SOME POSSIBLE WORLD IN
WHICH THERE'S SOMETHING.
AND IT'S GONNA BE TRUE IN THAT
POSSIBLE WORLD THAT EITHER THERE
ARE CONTINGENT BEINGS OR
THERE ARE NO CONTINGENT BEINGS.
SUPPOSE THERE ARE
NO CONTINGENT BEINGS.
WELL, THEN WHERE THERE'S A
BEING IN THAT WORLD THERE'S
NO CONTINGENT BEINGS, IT
MUST BE A NECESSARY BEING,
SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE IN THAT
WORLD FOR THERE TO BE NOTHING.
OKAY, BUT THEN GO
TO THE OTHER CASE.
SUPPOSE IN THAT WORLD
THERE WERE CONTINGENT BEINGS.
WELL, THEN THERE'S AN
EXPLANATION FOR THERE
BEING CONTINGENT BEINGS.
SO IT'S EITHER GONNA BE A
NECESSARY TRUTH THAT THERE ARE
CONTINGENT BEINGS, OR A
CONTINGENT TRUTH THAT THERE ARE
- WELL IF THERE'S - THAT
WOULD EXPLAIN WHY THERE ARE
CONTINGENT BEINGS IF
IT'S A NECESSARY TRUTH
THAT WE'RE LIVING.
BUT THEN IT'S IMPOSSIBLE
IN THAT WORLD TO BE NOTHING.
SO IT MUST BE TRUE I THE ACTUAL
WORLD THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THERE TO BE NOTHING.
THAT I CLAIM THIS ARGUMENT
DEDUCES FROM JUST THE ASSUMPTION
THAT IT'S POSSIBLE FOR
THERE TO BE SOMETHING.
I AM ENTHRALLED.
BUT DOES PETER'S
POSSIBLE-WORLD ARGUMENT WORK?
DOES IT 'PROVE' THE
IMPOSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING
NOTHING IN OUR ACTUAL WORLD
- WITHOUT EMPLOYING A GOD
WHO IS NECESSARY?
PROBABLY - BUT ONLY GIVEN
PETER'S ASSUMPTION THAT 'IT IS
POSSIBLE FOR
THERE TO BE SOMETHING'.
YET, IF THERE REALLY WERE
NOTHING, THEN PERHAPS IT WOULD
NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR
THERE TO BE SOMETHING.
PETER'S PERSONAL SOLUTION TO THE
'WHY-ANYTHING-AT-ALL' MYSTERY IS
THAT GOD EXISTS AND
GOD IS A NECESSARY BEING.
THIS REQUIRES TWO MASSIVE
ASSUMPTIONS - NOT JUST ONE.
BECAUSE EVEN IF GOD EXISTS
- ASSUMPTION ONE - WHY WOULD
GOD'S EXISTENCE
HAVE TO BE NECESSARY?
ASSUMPTION TWO - WHY WOULD
IT BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD
NOT TO EXIST?
I CAN EASILY IMAGINE A WORLD
IN WHICH GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
THE TANGLE OF THE ARGUMENT -
WITH OR WITHOUT GOD - MAKES SOME
WONDER WHETHER THE
QUESTION "WHY-ANYTHING-AT-ALL?"
IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION?
I ASK ANOTHER PROFESSOR OF
METAPHYSICS, ROBIN LE POIDEVIN.
IT'S A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE
QUESTION TO ASK WHY IS THERE
ANYTHING AT ALL.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID
IT'S AN ILLEGITIMATE QUESTION,
IT'S BASED ON A
MISUNDERSTANDING,
I THINK IT'S
PERFECTLY INTELLIGIBLE.
YOU AND I ARE WHAT WE MIGHT CALL
CONTINGENT BEINGS; WE EXIST,
WE MIGHT NOT HAVE EXISTED.
I THINK A LOT OF THE THINGS WE
ENCOUNTER IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES
ARE SIMILARLY CONTINGENT THINGS;
THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE EXISTED.
THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE MIGHT
NOT HAVE EXISTED, THERE MIGHT
HAVE BEEN NOTHING.
SO WHY IS THERE
SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?
NOW WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HOW TO
ANSWER THAT KIND OF QUESTION; WE
CAN'T SIMPLY HELP OURSELVES TO
THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING ELSE,
AND THAT MIGHT SEEM TO RULE OUT
AN EXPLANATION IN TERMS OF GOD
BECAUSE WE'RE HELPING
OURSELVES TO THE IDEA OF AN
EXISTENT THING, GOD.
BUT GOD IS DIFFERENT ARGUABLY.
YOU AND I MAY BE CONTINGENT
BEINGS, TRADITIONALLY GOD
HAS BEEN REGARDED AS A
NECESSARY BEING, HE COULD NOT
FAIL TO EXIST.
SO IF THE UNIVERSE EXISTS
BECAUSE GOD WILLS IT, THAT'S A
NECESSARY STATE OF AFFAIRS.
GOD COULDN'T HAVE FAILED TO
EXIST AND COULDN'T HAVE FAILED
TO BRING THE UNIVERSE
INTO EXISTENCE. 
THAT'S A STATEMENT, BUT IS
THERE ANY SUBSTANCE BEHIND IT?
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN
JUSTIFY IT OTHER THAN TO MAKE
THE STATEMENT THAT GOD
WAS A NECESSARY BEING?
YES, TO SAY THAT GOD IS A
NECESSARY BEING IS SOMETHING
THAT REALLY REQUIRES
QUITE A LOT OF OUR UNPACKING.
SO IT'S NOT THE SAME KIND OF
NECESSITY AS THE NECESSITY OF
1 + 1 IS 2.
WE WOULD SAY GOD IS A NECESSARY
BEING, WE'RE NOT JUST MAKING A
POINT ABOUT LANGUAGE, WE'RE
MAKING A POINT ABOUT REALITY.
AND HERE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT
TO UNDERSTAND HOW A BEING
CAN BE NECESSARY.
I CAN CONTAIN THE REASON
FOR THEIR OWN EXISTENCE IN
THEIR OWN PERSON.
MY OWN VIEW OF THE DIVINE
NECESSITY IS TO TAKE IT NOT AS A
PROPERTY OF GOD AS A FEATURE
OF OUR OWN ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD
THAT THE COMMITTED THEISTS
TAKES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AS
SOMETHING NON-NEGOTIABLE,
THAT IT UNDERLIES EVERYTHING,
IT COLORS THEIR VIEW
OF THE WHOLE OF REALITY.
IT'S NECESSARY IN THAT SENSE.
IT TELLS US MORE PERHAPS ABOUT
THE NATURE OF BELIEF THAN IT
DOES ABOUT THE NATURE OF GOD.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THOUGH, IT'S
NO LONGER SATISFACTORY TO SAY
THERE'S SOMETHING RATHER
THAN NOTHING BECAUSE GOD
EXISTS OF NECESSITY.
ROBIN REJECTS 'GOD'S
NECESSITY' AS NOT SOLVING THE
MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE.
'GOD'S NECESSITY' IS MORE
ABOUT "LANGUAGE" AND "THEISTIC
BELIEF," ROBIN SAYS, AND LESS
ABOUT "REALITY" AND AN ACTUAL
"PROPERTY OF GOD".
BUT WITHOUT GOD BEING 'NECESSARY
IN REALITY', GOD SEEMS NO HELP
IN EXPLAINING,
"WHY GOD, NOT NOTHING?"
IF ONLY WE COULD APPREHEND EVEN
A HINT OF GOD'S ACTUAL ESSENCE?
I ASK A CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHER, AN
EXPERT ON GOD'S DEEP NATURE -
A JESUIT PRIEST -
FATHER ROBERT SPITZER.
HERE'S A THREE-STEP
PROCESS FOR FUTURE REFLECTION:
STEP NUMBER ONE:
RK: I'M COUNTING.
OKAY.
THINK OF A REALITY THAT YOU CAN
WORK BACKWARDS TO, SO JUST SAY
UNRESTRICTED AND NO INTRINSIC,
EXTRINSIC RESTRICTIONS
TO THE POWER.
THEN SECONDLY, CONCEIVE OF THAT
AS BEING UNCONDITIONED, THAT IT
COULD EXIST THROUGH
ITSELF IN A PURE UNITY AND
A PURE SIMPLICITY.
THEN THE THIRD THING IS, JUST
TRY, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE TO
APPROACH IT FROM THE VANTAGE
POINT OF A VIA NEGATIVA, I HAVE
TO TAKE AWAY EVERY IMAGE, I'VE
GOT TO TAKE AWAY THE SPATIAL
MANIFOLD, I'VE GOT TO TAKE AWAY
THE TEMPORAL MANIFOLD, BUT JUST
THINK FOR A SECOND; EVERY TIME
I'M TAKING AWAY ONE OF THESE
THINGS THAT IS RESTRICTING
IT, I'M ALSO TAKING
AWAY A PRESUPPOSITION.
NOW TAKE THEM ALL
AWAY, THIRD STEP.
I'LL TAKE EVERYTHING AWAY, EVERY
SINGLE THING THAT CAN CAUSE A
RESTRICTION THAT IS
EVERYTHING THEN THAT CAN
CAUSE A PRESUPPOSITION.
AND AT THAT POINT,
REFLECTIVELY, YOU ALMOST CAN
SORT OF SEE FOR A
GLIMMER OF A SECOND, SOMETHING
PRESUPPOSITIONLESS AS
PRESUPPOSITIONLESS AS NOTHING.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, ALL OF
A SUDDEN THE QUANDARY, GREAT
QUANDARY THAT IT IS, BEGINS TO
DISSIPATE AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S
ROOM FOR REALITY
AND NOT JUST NOTHING.
PERHAPS, FOR THAT 'GLIMMER OF A
SECOND', I CAN ALMOST SEE GOD AS
'PRESUPPOSITIONLESS" - NO
RESTRICTIONS, PURE SIMPLICITY,
NO SPACE, NO TIME.
EVEN SO, SUCH A
GOD IS NOT NOTHING.
I STILL DON'T SEE HOW
GOD COULD BE MORE SIMPLE
THAN ABSOLUTE NOTHING.
BUT IF THIS BE GOD, DOES
IT SEEM SIMILAR TO 'COSMIC
CONSCIOUSNESS', WHICH
EASTERN RELIGIONS CONSIDER THE
'GROUND OF BEING.'
IN PURSUING, "WHY
GOD, NOT NOTHING?"
PERHAPS I SHOULD EXPLORE
OTHER KINDS OF CONSCIOUSNESS -
PURE CONSCIOUSNESS -
NOT JUST THE "GOD KIND."
I MEET A PHYSICIST WHO STRESSES
THE DEEP CONNECTION BETWEEN
QUANTUM PHYSICS AND
CONSCIOUSNESS - MENAS KEFATOS.
WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?
I WOULD ANSWER BACK, WHY NOT?
(LAUGHS).
SCIENCE DOESN'T GIVE ANSWERS
TO THE WHYS; IT ONLY GIVES
ANSWERS TO HOW.
HOW THE PARTICLES MOVE, HOW THE
FIELDS MANIFEST IN SPACE-TIME.
BUT NOT THE WHYS.
THE WHY IS A FUNDAMENTAL
PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT WHY
THERE IS ANYTHING, OR REALITY,
IS BECAUSE PERHAPS THIS IS A
MEANINGFUL UNIVERSE, OR THIS
IS A CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE.
THAT IS THERE FOR US TO
EXPERIENCE ALL THERE IS.
YOU'RE GIVING A REASON WHY,
BUT YOU'RE USING THE CONCEPT OF
MEANING AND OF JUSTIFYING
THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING.
BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING,
YOU DON'T HAVE MEANING,
YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING,
YOU HAVE WHAT I WOULD SAY AN
IRRELEVANT UNIVERSE, OR
AN IRRELEVANT EXISTENCE.
SO THE UNIVERSE WE LIVE
IN SEEMS TO BE MEANINGFUL.
IT SEEMS TO BE MINDFUL.
AND IT SEEMS TO BE
EVOLVING ALL THE TIME.
DOES THAT JUSTIFY
ITS EXISTENCE THOUGH?
THAT IS THE CORE, THE
VERY CORE OF ITS EXISTENCE.
NOW JUSTIFY MEANS I'M
STEPPING OUT, AND I'M ASKING
THE QUESTION WHY.
RK: YES, YES.
AND I WOULD SAY YOU
CAN NEVER STEP OUT.
SO THAT'S WHY THE MEANING
IS PART OF THE WHOLE THING.
THE SOUP IS PART OF....
RK: SO BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE
SYSTEM, IN THE REALITY, WE ARE
INCAPABLE YOU'RE SAYING
OF ASKING ABOUT THE REALITY
IN ITS TOTALITY.
WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS SUCH AS
THAT, BUT HOW CAN WE ADDRESS
THEM SCIENTIFICALLY
OR EVEN PHILOSOPHICALLY?
IF WE CANNOT EXTRACT
OURSELVES FROM EXISTENCE?
BUT IF OUR VERY EXISTENCE AS A
CONSCIOUS BEING IS FUNDAMENTAL,
THEN YOU CAN NEVER
EXTRACT IT, IT'S ALWAYS THERE.
AND SO, DOES THAT GIVE
CONSCIOUSNESS A FUNDAMENTAL
SELF-EXISTENCE, AND THEREFORE
ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHY IS
THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?
IT IS SO MUCH THE WHOLE THING,
THAT YOU CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS
OUTSIDE OF IT.
YOU CAN, BUT THOSE QUESTIONS
ARE STILL IN CONSCIOUSNESS.
EVEN IF YOU DREAM OF
UNIVERSES THAT DON'T EXIST,
THEY'RE STILL IN CONSCIOUSNESS.
YOU CAN'T GET THEM OUT OF IT.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN'T
ESCAPE FROM CONSCIOUSNESS NO
MATTER WHAT WE DO.
MK: WE CANNOT ESCAPE
FROM CONSCIOUSNESS.
RK: AND SO, TO ASK WHY IS THERE
CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE FIRST
PLACE BECOMES MEANINGLESS.
IS THAT RIGHT?
IT'S A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.
IT'S A CIRCULAR QUESTION.
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T
EXTRACT YOURSELF FROM IT.
GRANTED, WE ONLY ACCESS REALITY
THROUGH OUR CONSCIOUSNESS.
BUT DOES IT FOLLOW THAT
WE CANNOT EVALUATE THE
REALITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS?
ONLY, PERHAPS, IF CONSCIOUSNESS
IS THE FOUNDATION OF REALITY -
AN EXTREME POSITION I AM
NOT COMPELLED TO ACCEPT.
WHERE'S EVIDENCE
THAT THE PHYSICAL WORLD
COMES FROM CONSCIOUSNESS?
I AM INTRIGUED - I DO TAKE
CONSCIOUSNESS SERIOUSLY.
BUT I'M SKEPTICAL - THE PHYSICAL
WORLD SEEMS REAL ENOUGH.
I GO TO A PROPONENT OF
THE PRIMACY OF CONSCIOUSNESS,
THE INDIAN-AMERICAN
PHYSICIAN - DEEPAK CHOPRA.
DEEPAK, YOU BELIEVE THAT
CONSCIOUSNESS IS FUNDAMENTAL.
SOME OF MY PHILOSOPHY OF
RELIGION FRIENDS FEEL THAT GOD
IS THE ULTIMATE EXISTENCE,
AND OF COURSE THE QUANTUM
PHYSICISTS BELIEVE THAT QUANTUM
PHYSICS OR SOMETHING DEEPER THAN
THAT - STRING THEORY -
IS THE ULTIMATE REALITY.
MY QUESTION IS DIFFERENT.
I DON'T CARE WHAT
YOUR ULTIMATE REALITY IS.
CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT.
I WANT TO KNOW WHY
THERE IS ANYTHING.
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING
RATHER THAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?
I WOULD SAY
THERE'S ONLY NOTHING.
THERE'S NOTHING ELSE.
OKAY?
THAT WHAT WE CALL THINGS ARE
SHORT-LIVED QUALIA EXPERIENCES
IN THE NOTHING BECAUSE
QUALIA, YOU CAN'T WEIGH THEM,
YOU CAN'T MEASURE THEM.
YOU CAN'T QUANTIFY THEM.
MASS AND ENERGY
ARE ACTUALLY QUALIA
EXPERIENCES IN CONSCIOUSNESS.
THERE IS NO SOME THING.
ALL THINGS ARE
ACTUALLY NO THING.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT ANY
THING, YOU END UP WITH NOTHING.
BUT THERE ARE STUFF
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU'RE EXPLAINING TO ME NO
THING, AND I AGREE WITH YOU;
THERE'S NO MATTER THING.
BUT YOU MENTION QUALIA,
YOU HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS,
YOU HAVE WAVE FUNCTIONS.
WORDS, WORDS, WORDS.
RK: YOU HAVE A LOT OF STUFF.
DC: WORDS WORDS WORDS.
RK: THAT'S A LOT OF STUFF!
THAT'S NOT NOTHING.
THAT'S SOMETHING.
OKAY, YOU EXPERIENCE
THE COLOR BLUE RIGHT?
YES.
WHERE IS IT?
IT'S IN IMAGINARY SPACE.
OKAY, BUT DOES IT HAVE WEIGHT,
DOES IT HAVE SUBSTANTIALITY?
NO.
YOU'RE EXPERIENCING SOUND.
RIGHT.
DOES IT HAVE
WEIGHT, SUBSTANTIALITY?
YOU'RE EXPERIENCING FORM.
DOES IT HAVE
WEIGHT SUBSTANTIALITY?
YOU'RE EXPERIENCING
TASTE, SMELL.
DOES IT HAVE WEIGHT?
THESE ARE NAMES THAT WE GIVE
TO, I'M USING THE WORD QUALIA
BECAUSE I LIKE IT.
QUALITY.
QUALITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS, OKAY?
BUT MY POINT IS THAT
QUALIA IS A KIND OF SOMETHING.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WEIGH,
IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU SHAPE.
BUT IT'S A KIND OF SOMETHING.
I WANT TO KNOW WHY THERE
ARE SUCH THINGS AS QUALIA.
OKAY, NOW YOU'VE ASKED
A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION,
WHY IS THERE EXPERIENCE?
YES, WHY IS THERE EXPERIENCE?
ANSWER IS I DON'T KNOW.
I CAN ASK HOW, BUT WHY,
I THINK NO ONE CAN ANSWER.
YOU KNOW WHAT?
I WOULD SAY IT'S A
GOOD AMUSEMENT PARK.
IT'S A GOOD THEME PARK.
IT'S BETTER THAN WALT DISNEY.
I WOULD SAY IT'S GOD'S DREAM.
WE ARE DREAM OBJECTS
IN GOD'S CONSCIOUSNESS.
WHY ARE THERE
SUCH THINGS AS DREAMS?
WHY IS THERE SUCH THINGS AS GOD?
WHY IS THERE AN
EXISTENT OF EXPERIENCE?
THERE'S NO LAW THAT SAYS THERE
HAS TO BE, BECAUSE IF THERE'S
NOTHING THERE'S NO LAW.
UNLESS YOU TRY TO UNDERSTAND
NOTHING YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND
ANY PARTICULAR THING.
OKAY, IF CONSCIOUSNESS IS
THE SUBJECTIVE GROUND OF ALL
EXPERIENCE, THEN IT CAN ONLY BE
POSSIBLE IF IT DIFFERENTIATES
INTO AN OBSERVER, A MODE OF
OBSERVATION, AND THEN OBJECT OF
OBSERVATION, JUST LIKE
DNA, YOU KNOW YOUR STEM CELL,
DIFFERENTIATES INTO THIS BODY.
RK: I AGREE, BUT I'M NOT
GOING IN A FORWARD DIRECTION.
I'M GOING IN A
BACKWARD DIRECTION.
WHAT CAUSED THAT CONSCIOUSNESS
TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
IS IT SELF EXISTENT?
IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT
CONSCIOUSNESS THAT HAS AN
INTRINSIC SELF-EXISTENCE SO
THAT TO ASK THE QUESTION WHY IT
EXISTS IS A NONSENSE
OR A CONTRADICTION?
UNLESS YOU'RE WILLING TO
FACE THIS, YOU REALLY DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.
IF I CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTION
WHY, WHICH I CANNOT, IT COMPELS
ME INTO A STATE OF BEWILDERMENT,
AND THAT BEWILDERMENT IS A
MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE THAT
ALSO HUMBLES ME INTO REVERENCE.
I LUXURIATE IN BEWILDERMENT.
THAT'S THE TRUE SCIENTIST THEN.
THAT'S A RADICAL SKEPTIC.
I STARE AT THE CEILING AND
WONDER, WHY IS THERE SOMETHING
RATHER THAN NOTHING?
IS GOD OR CONSCIOUSNESS
THE REASON WHY THERE IS
ANYTHING AT ALL?
THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBLE
REASONS, OF COURSE, INCLUDING
BRUTE FACT, CHANCE, VALUE,
EVEN DISMISSING THE QUESTION AS
MEANINGLESS OR ABSURD.
IF GOD OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS
FUNDAMENTAL, IT'D COME IN THREE
FLAVORS: ONE, CONSCIOUSNESS
AS THE PERSONAL GOD
OF WESTERN RELIGIONS.
TWO, CONSCIOUSNESS AS THE
IMPERSONAL COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS
OF EASTERN RELIGIONS.
THREE, CONSCIOUSNESS
AS A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTY
OF THE WORLD.
HERE'S WHAT TROUBLES ME.
'NOTHING EXISTING' SEEMS SIMPLER
THAN 'ANYTHING EXISTING'.
SO WHY NOT NOTHING?
IF THERE WERE ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING, THERE COULD BE 'NO
THING' IN THE NOTHING - NO LAW,
NO RULE, NO EXISTING THING -
THAT COULD BRING
ABOUT SOMETHING.
BUT BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING
- NOT NOTHING - THERE MUST
BE A REASON.
IF WE CAN EVER FIND IT
NOTHING ELSE COULD BE...
CLOSER TO TRUTH.
FOR COMPLETE INTERVIEWS AND FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT
WWW.CLOSERTOTRUTH.COM
