Naturalism's Cosmological Dilemma

Episode Transcript

Sean McDowell: [upbeat music] A new battle emerges over the Big Bang. Interestingly, part of it came through from a conversation we had on this channel, as well as a new book out that's called "Battle of the Big Bang." Dr. Stephen Meyer, a friend of myself, Talbot School of Theology, one of the leading defenders of the existence of God in light of the emerging scientific evidence, is here to explain kind of the drama behind the debate and what's at stake. Thanks for coming here in person.

Stephen Meyer: It's great to be with you, Sean. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, there's a bit of a backstory that, involves the two of us. Do you-- Shall I start there?

Sean McDowell: Yeah, that's a great place to start.

Stephen Meyer: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Please.

Stephen Meyer: Well, you and I had a conversation, soon after the paperback version of my book, "Return of the God Hypothesis" came out-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... In which there was a new epilogue, and in the epilogue, I mentioned some of the newer, what are called infinite universe cosmological models that physicists and mathematicians have been devising to try to save the idea that the universe is infinitely old, despite the many lines of evidence that have been accumulating since the 19-teens and '20s suggesting that the universe had a beginning. And one of those models is a model that was devised by Sir Roger Penrose, the great British physicist, and Sir Roger's model, called the conformal cyclic cosmology, is something that I critiqued in passing in the epilogue of the books, pointing out that though it does provide a mathematical account of how the universe could be infinitely old, it does so at a high cost for philosophical naturalism, in particular, the cost being the affirmation of unexplained fine-tuning, additional sources of unexplained fine-tuning. So you may be able to get around the beginning-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... But to do so, you have to affirm, additional sources of unexplained fine-tuning that suggest, again, a fine-tuner, and reinforce the fine-tuning argument for God's existence, even if you've gotten rid of the cosmological argument for God's existence that's predicated on a beginning. In response, a, to our conversation, a British, science writer, journalist, Phil Halper, apparently heard the

Sean McDowell: Authors

Stephen Meyer: One of the authors of

Sean McDowell: The Big Bang"

Stephen Meyer: ... "Big Bang", heard the conversation, presented elements of it to Sir Roger.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: They collectively expressed some dismay, thinking that I, feeling perhaps, that I had misrepresented some aspects of Sir Roger's model, and then they came back with a a a podcast and critique. That resulted, in turn, in Justin Brierley hearing about the Halper, response to you and me. Justin was looking for someone to debate me at Oxford. He had arranged for a debate between me and first Alex O'Connor. Alex ended up shifting and having a debate with a different partner.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: And then Justin pulled in in Phil, and he and I had a three-hour conversation-

Sean McDowell: Wow

Stephen Meyer: ... Moderated by Justin about all things cosmological- ... Which was, in a way, really terrific. And that, in turn, has resulted in, Hal-- Phil, presenting what he takes my position to be and presenting it to a series of leading physicists and cosmologists. He writes on this topic, so he knows many of the leading people in the field, and eliciting their critique of me. But that may be where we want to join the discussion because now whereas Sir Roger felt that he had been misrepresented, I think that Phil misrepresented ... In what he shared with these physicists and cosmologists, leading to a kind of garbage in, garbage out situation where he presented them with a straw man version of my position and then their critique of my position being, falsely predicated, came back as sounding very authoritative in, and suggesting that maybe I didn't know what I was talking about at all. But it was based on a misrepresentation of my view. And, you've kindly given me a chance to rejoin the conversation, first by clarifying what my view actually is, and then I guess we've decided we'll have a second conversation about the work of Sir Roger Penrose on, in his conformal cyclic cosmological model, where we'll maybe clarify a few things, eliminate some confusion, and then, see if we can clean that discussion up as well.

Sean McDowell: This is a really remarkable moment that we're at, 'cause debates about the Big Bang, like you said, have been going on for a century plus, and now we're at a point where all these new models are emerging. People like Sir Roger Penrose, one of the most influential scientists for the past half century, has weighed in with his model. There's claims of underrepresentation, misrepresentation. Well, the most important thing is that we get clarity on what the models are, whether they point towards the universe having a beginning, whether they point towards intelligent design. I think this is kind of a remarkable moment that we're at, so I appreciate you coming down and clarifying your model. And then we'll also have part two where we'll focus it distinctly on Roger Penrose's model-

Stephen Meyer: Perfect. Perfect

Sean McDowell: ... And get your response there.

Stephen Meyer: I'm a, I you know I believe in God, but I'm also a big believer in Bob Dylan.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Stephen Meyer: And and Dylan's, famous quote, which I always share with my students, is, "You can't criticize what you don't understand."

Sean McDowell: Love it.

Stephen Meyer: So if I, if I misunderstood some part of Sir Roger's model, let's return to that and clean that up. I think that the gravamen, the focus of my critique stands irrespective of one thing that where I think I did get it a bit wrong, one element of what he's proposing. In a way, in my defense, I think we'll see when we get there that my way of representing what he was arguing was perhaps a more sympathetic reconstruction of his rationale than-

Sean McDowell: Oh, interesting

Stephen Meyer: ... Than some physicists would grant to him.

Sean McDowell: Okay. Okay.

Stephen Meyer: So I, it was, it was an error in that direction at least.

Sean McDowell: Fair enough.

Stephen Meyer: I also embarrassingly misstated the title of his model. I said that it was the cyclic conformal cosmology when it's actually the conformal cyclic cosmology. And my new friend Phil had a little fun with that-

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Stephen Meyer: ... But we can, we'll let that go. As he did ultimately. But in any case, I do appreciate this 'cause I think, I think in the interest of clarity and advancing the truth- ... We wanna make sure that we are critiquing each other's ideas accurately. It was one of the, one of the neat things about the conversation with Justin Brierley and his new program, that's one of the ... He wants to make sure that each of the interlocutors are feeling that the other interlocutor is representing their position accurately. So I think this is a great opportunity to do that, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify what my position is so that people understand, what it is I'm actually arguing com- as opposed to the impression that Phil gave to these cosmologists and physicists. And it may be that charitably that Phil's, impression of my position was inaccurate, but,

Stephen Meyer: was innocently derived because- ... These are difficult things to to master. And in my book Return of the God Hypothesis, I have a kind of prima facie case for theism based on the beginning. But then I have in the latter part of the book a second derivative case that says, "But if you don't accept the evidence for a beginning, and you want to model the origin of the universe alternatively as having a past eternal, kind of profile, then you will invariably end up affirming something that provides other grounds for theism." And so this is a a style of argumentation that philosophers sometimes call a robust argument. And a robust argument is one that terminates with the same conclusion irrespective of two or more different factual predicates. And that's the kind of argument that I'm actually making, and that is a little bit difficult perhaps to perceive at first blush.

Sean McDowell: Well, we'll get into some of that. I really appreciate your commitment and desire to follow truth, to represent arguments fairly, your humility to come on and say, "You know what? I might've gotten this not as clearly as I could have, but let's come back and get it exactly right, and then offer our critique." I think we're at a remarkable part of this conversation, and-

Stephen Meyer: It, it's actually fascinating, Sean-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Stephen Meyer: ... To just go step by... It, it's, you know, to go step by step, and this is what we'll do in our, in our second conversation.

Sean McDowell: Yep.

Stephen Meyer: We can go step by step through the the Penrose model. A lot of people, these, discussions of cosmology are of interest to everyone. Where did the universe come from? This is a,

Sean McDowell: Big question

Stephen Meyer: ... Question of ultimate concern.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: Why is there something rather than nothing? You know, one of the great philosophical questions closely related to that. But, because the cosmologists are often physicists in their training, and because cosmological models are rendered mathematically often, many people cannot read the papers- ... And, that are written by these leading thinkers, and so they end up being opaque to the public. And one of the things that I like to do, having had a background in physics and having great physics colleagues, Bruce Gordon, a philosopher of physics who studied-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Stephen Meyer: ... Did his PhD with Arthur Fine at Northwestern, Brian Miller, PhD in complex systems physics from Duke. When I was doing Return of the God Hypothesis, I did a lot of mathematical retooling myself. My daughter was at Tulane at the time. Every time I'd go down, I'd spend three hours with Frank Tipler in his office.

Sean McDowell: That's great.

Stephen Meyer: And, he derives some of these fundamental equations of quantum- ... Cosmology for me, and showed how they followed from the Schrödinger equation in ordinary quantum mechanics. So I had enough background to be able to kinda retool in this area, and then, and then to read these papers profitably, and then function a bit as a translator with some even more sophisticated, accomplished physicists as my guide to make sure I was getting the technical details right. And so with that in mind, I think when we come back to have that conversation about Sir Roger's work, it's remarkable that I think that when you break it down in qualitative terms and explain what he's arguing metaphysically as well as physically and mathematically, most people can will actually be able to understand the model. And that will also, I think, expose where there are some logical limitations, let's say, in what he's doing and why the case I'm making about unexplained fine-tuning in all the infinite universe cosmological models is actually, is actually quite compelling.

Sean McDowell: Let's take a step back. You know very well who Roger Penrose is. I've tracked his work for a long time, one of the most respected scientists of our day. But for those who are watching this going, "Okay, who exactly is Penrose, and why is his claim that you misrepresented him so significant?" Tell us a little bit of that backstory.

Stephen Meyer: Well, Sir Roger was actually one of Hawking's, PhD examiners. And Hawking, in the mid-'60s, presented a PhD thesis at Cambridge University. It was after his ALS diagnosis. It's really- ... A very heroic story because ... Was, he was so discouraged at one point, he thought he would quit the PhD. But he continued, and, in one of the key chapters of his dissertation or his thesis, he he'd been thinking about, he'd been thinking about black hole physics, and he realized in the forward direction of time, matter is getting more and more diffuse. In the reverse... Well, he's thinking a black hole is a, is a concentration of matter that is so dense that even light can't get out. And, but then he begins to think about black hole physics in relation to what the cosmologists are talking about, that in the forward direction of time, matter is getting more and more diffuse. But that means in the reverse direction of time, matter is getting more and more densely concentrated. So according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, the space around the matter in the reverse direction of time would've been more and more tightly curved as you ... Progressively further and further back.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: And that's why you, reach a limiting case because as you go further and further back, the matter gets more and more densely concentrated. The space gets more tightly curved. The space gets more tightly curved, the matter gets more densely concentrated, and eventually you reach what Hawking eventually called the singularity.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: Now, he presents that as part of his PhD thesis, and in the, in the little, the little film about his life, the biopic called "The Theory of Everything"-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Stephen Meyer: ... Not to be confused with our new, our new film coming out called "The Story of Everything."

Sean McDowell: That's right.

Stephen Meyer: Hawking, they they show, you know, the the examiners pushing the the thesis across and saying, they're picking at all the little mistakes he made in the other chapters and then but this idea of a, of a space-time singularity, a big bang at the begin- or, a black hole at the beginning of the universe, "That's brilliant. Congratulations, Dr. Hawking," and they shove the book back across and- pass

Sean McDowell: ... Is one of the ones that's-

Stephen Meyer: Penrose is one of the-

Sean McDowell: ... Pushing it back

Stephen Meyer: ... Is one of the-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Stephen Meyer: ... And then, and then someone says, "Now, well, now go work out the maths."

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Stephen Meyer: Okay? Well, so Penrose and Hawking then go work out the maths, okay? And in '67, '68, I think they publish, a couple of papers with mathematical proof of the singularity. Then Penrose, then rather Hawking writes a book with George Ellis, in '71 with a further elaboration of proofs of singularities and in the '71 book, they acknowledge that, yes, well, in, you know, I think it was at that point 10 to the minus 33rd of a centimeter is the volume at which the general relativity analysis has to take into account the quantum, and they really at that point, we, all bets are off, but we're talking about something so small you can hardly imagine it. And they say it's essentially is, if not a singularity, it's a near singularity, and essentially it's a creation event. What we've established is there was a creation event. Hawking then spends much of the rest of his career in, at least on cosmology-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... Attempting to circumvent that conclusion, and he formulates quantum cosmology as the way to do that, okay? And that's why I address, I go into so much depth on that in the, in "The Return of the God Hypothesis" because I wanted to show that you can circumvent the conclusion, the, of an, of an absolutely certain beginning, but you do so at a cost, and the cost in quantum cosmology is an unexplained informational input or an unexplained fine-tuning that itself has theistic implications. That's the bottom line of what we've just been talking about. What Penrose now has done is come up with another cosmological model that attempts to restore an infinite universe, ... Attempts to depict the universe as infinitely or past eternal. And that's, and that's only one of many reasons that Penrose is significant. I mean, he's a great physicist on multiple, in multiple different areas, and also, kind of a leader in the discussion of the mind-body problem as well- ... Where he's had some very interesting things that I think are actually quite favorable to the sort of notion of dualism. So he's a very interesting figure, brilliant physicist, and I, you know, obviously in a way I was kinda pleased that,

Sean McDowell: Oh, I was thrilled

Stephen Meyer: ... He he engaged us.

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Stephen Meyer: He was, he was saying in the interview that I had, I had critiqued his new model. I was pointing out that many leading physicists have rejected it. They think it's just very counterintuitive, contrary to a lot of known physics. And and he said, "Well but the that other physicists are critiquing it is a point in its favor. I'm glad to know that they're taking it seriously enough to critique it." I feel the same way about Sir Roger, critiquing our conversation, so, you know, it's-

Sean McDowell: I love to hear you say that. When I heard he respond, I was like, wow, he's, hands down one of the most influential scientists over the past half century, takes our interview and your work seriously enough to respond. This is a great moment for this conversation and for this debate. So maybe let's take a step back. Phil's created this video with the responses by 16 cosmologists and/or physicists based on a misrepresentation of what your argument actually is. Now, I'm tempted to ask why he would do that. Does he not understand it? Does he want to advance? But ... Motivations are somewhat secondary. Nonetheless, he does

Stephen Meyer: Well, that's my claim, that he, that he misrepresents-

Sean McDowell: Okay. Okay

Stephen Meyer: ... And I can, I can justify that, but-

Sean McDowell: Do it, if you will

Stephen Meyer: ... We need to presuppose that he has misrepresented me. But-

Sean McDowell: Fair enough

Stephen Meyer: ... Yeah. Let, let's, we'll, I guess we'll come back to, the Penrose conversation we had before in a, in a subsequent, in a subsequent interview. But, we're

Sean McDowell: Gonna, we're gonna follow up with this-

Stephen Meyer: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... And go into some detail-

Stephen Meyer: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... On Penrose's model.

Stephen Meyer: On Penrose's model, right.

Sean McDowell: Why you're not convinced by it. It still presumes a certain amount

Stephen Meyer: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... Information, if it is.

Stephen Meyer: Well, certainly it presumes a lot of unexplained fine-tuning, and we can get into that. But-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Stephen Meyer: ... But so here here's the, I was, I was gonna tell you the backstory, and I got, I got deep in the weeds of quantum cosmology. So I'll, I apologize to your audience.

Sean McDowell: [laughs] It's okay.

Stephen Meyer: The backstory is that after Sir Roger, well, Phil heard our conversation-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... About where I discussed Penrose's model at the end-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... Of a longer conversation. He then shared my remarks with Penrose and then did an interview with him. Penrose, expressed some dismay at my repres- misrepresenting him, and then this went out in some of the sort of atheist, scientific atheist, circles, and Justin Brierley caught wind of it. And had, he had a debate scheduled for me and Alex O'Connor, but then, Alex preferred to do somebody else, and Justin brought in Phil Halper. And Phil and I had, I think about a three-hour-long debate. It was, it was all conversationally moderated by Justin-

Sean McDowell: Of course

Stephen Meyer: ... Who's very skilled at that.

Sean McDowell: Yeah, he's the best.

Stephen Meyer: And but it went on about three hours, and, in, you know, in in blocks of time, and I guess it's gonna be re-released later this spring. In any case, Phil went then and took what he, took my, what he believed was my position and shared it with various cosmologists and physicists in his acquaintance-

Sean McDowell: Ooh

Stephen Meyer: ... 'cause he writes on this, so he's knows a lot of these people.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: And elicited critiques of me based on what he had fed to them. But unfortunately, what he fed to them was a misrepresentation of my position. And so even though these very prominent people critiquing me, cumulatively sound very authoritative-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Stephen Meyer: ... In dismissing poor old Meyer's-

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Stephen Meyer: ... Benighted view, it was a kind of garbage in, garbage out situation- ... Where having fed them a straw man, the critiques that each of them c-collectively rendered, I think, in the end, missed the mark. And so that's kinda where it, where where it stood or where it stands, yeah.

Sean McDowell: Okay. Do you wanna go into any of the details of that debate, kinda what happened, where it goes? Obviously, you want people to go watch that as well,

Stephen Meyer: Less the debate, but more the, this question of the misrepresentation-

Sean McDowell: Okay, good

Stephen Meyer: ... Because I think it's crucial, and it goes back to what we were first talking about.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Stephen Meyer: Because what Halper told them was that I claimed that the singularity theorems of Hawking and Penrose proved a beginning and that I was advancing a singularity-based apologetic for the existence of God. And based on what I've already said, I think your viewers and listeners will understand that my argument's quite a bit more subtle than that.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: And that it is, it's a conditional argument. If we accept that as best we can tell the universe had a beginning, not that we've proven it, but as best we can tell-

Sean McDowell: Yeah

Stephen Meyer: ... The best explanation of the evidence is that there was a beginning.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: Then that conclusion has theistic implications. The posi- postulating God best explains a finite, origin of the the origin of the universe a finite time ago where we consider the universe to be matter, space, time, and energy.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: Okay. But if we accept one of these infinite universe cosmologies or if we model the universe as having an infinite universe, then in our modeling, we invariably are affirming in, something in particular, quite often unexplained fine-tuning, that provides alternative evidence for theism. So it's either that we have a theistic conclusion based on the factual predicate of a beginning, or we have a theistic conclusion based on some of the features that are invariably present in these infinite universe- ... Cosmological models, in particular, vast amounts of new unexplained fine-tuning. And so my apologetic is not singularity based. Rather, it's evidentially based, not a proof of an absolute beginning, but a cumulative case for a beginning as a best explanation of the evidence. Plus or, and in addition to, an alternative condition where if you don't, if you're not persuaded by that or if you wanna model the universe as being infinitely old, you're gonna be affirming something else that invariably provides grounds for theism. So it's an either/or argument-

Sean McDowell: Okay

Stephen Meyer: ... Not based only on one possible factual predicate.

Sean McDowell: This is one of the most important things I want people to take from this interview. You said at the beginning kind of, pick your poison or either/or.

Stephen Meyer: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: We don't escape design or information whichever avenue we take. It's not like a fork in a road. You can have universe and get, eternal universe, get rid of God. There's still design there. Or this fork in the road, we have the beginning of the universe, which has theistic implications. Now, a minute ago, you said that Penrose's model, which we're gonna come back to and respond to in some depth- ... Has been rejected by many, if not most physicists at this point.

Stephen Meyer: The-

Sean McDowell: Is that fair before

Stephen Meyer: Well,

Sean McDowell: ... Go further?

Stephen Meyer: I maybe we'll

Sean McDowell: Or challenged

Stephen Meyer: ... Let's get into that when we do the separate conversation about Penrose.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Stephen Meyer: But there are different elements of what Penrose has a a kind of a five or six-step scenario by which he justifies, a new eon of creation, a new eon of expansion of the universe. So he has

Sean McDowell: Okay

Stephen Meyer: ... Rather, if you think of that old oscillating universe model-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... Where the universe- ... Expands and contracts and expands and contracts.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: The problem in that old model was that when you get to the end of an expansion phase, you have, highly diffuse distribution of matter. It's not organized or concentrated in any way that would allow it to do work, and so you have a buildup of entropy. It's a high entropy end of cycle state, and the problem that the old oscillating universe model had was: How do you get from a high entropy state with a lot of energy that is a lot of matter and no energy available to do work, to a new cycle where you have a concentration of energy that's available to do work and create a new, a new expansion phase?

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: What Penrose has, a a three or four-step scenario where he attempts to solve that problem.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Stephen Meyer: But he does so by violating some very established known p-principles in physics. In particular, the unitary principle of quantum mechanics and a few other things that have caused a a lot of leading physicists to say, "Wait, I don't think this works." And then there's a little bit of a mathematical sleight of hand where he uses something called conformal geometry to try to make what looks very big, namely the universe, look very small, and where he's got a lot of, where he has no energy available to do work and where suddenly he gets a new concentration of energy available to do work. And the moves he makes to accomplish that have been questioned by lots and lots of physicists.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Stephen Meyer: Okay?

Sean McDowell: So that that-

Stephen Meyer: But we can come back to that, and we ought to break that down in a more step-by-step way, because the last thing we want to do in our next conversation-

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Stephen Meyer: ... Is misrepresent Sir Roger, because he,

Sean McDowell: Totally. That's fair

Stephen Meyer: ... He's a great physicist and observed a a, deserves to be properly critiqued. My motto that I've always taught my students- ... Is from Bob Dylan. "You can't criticize what you don't understand." So let's-

Sean McDowell: That's totally fair

Stephen Meyer: ... Let's come back and make sure that everyone understands that we understand what Penrose's model is.

Sean McDowell: Yeah.

Stephen Meyer: And then I'll, and then I'll offer my critique in that, context, and we'll take that conversation more slowly, which we probably should've done the first time around.

Sean McDowell: Love it. No, that's totally fine. That's, that's fair.

Stephen Meyer: But

Sean McDowell: So without going into depth-

Stephen Meyer: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... My question is that at least, maybe you haven't done a poll of most, but many leading physicists are challenging and agreeing with you that there's certain questionable things-

Stephen Meyer: Yeah, it's not just the ID people that are, questioning, Penrose. Yeah.

Sean McDowell: So then here's my question on your model.

Stephen Meyer: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: Since you're saying the origin of the universe, if it had a beginning, has theistic implications, and that seems to be widely agreed, at least by philosophers as far as I can tell. But on the other, you know, fork in the road where you're saying these models require some, they don't get rid of the need for information input, and hint an argument for design. Is that equally built upon questionable assumptions, or would you say in your other rung of this fork, "No, I'm building on widely accepted theories and ideas inside the scientific world"?

Stephen Meyer: Well, I would say that this, conditional argument, you know, you elect condition A, you have theistic implications.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: If you elect condition B, you've got theistic implications.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: That's what, that was perhaps the most original element, of "The Return of the God Hypothesis." Okay? And for that reason, it may be, exactly why it was difficult, you know, for, it has been difficult for my critics to understand what I'm saying. You know, Phil has just, Phil Halper has sort of just repaired to this idea that this is another version of the Kalam argument, and Myers arguing using the singularity theorem to justify the second premise that the universe had a beginning. And physicists say, "No, you can't use the singularity theorem to do that because, inside the Planck volume, we have quantum mechanical effects that mean that the energy, the weak and strong energy conditions don't apply, and therefore, we we don't know." You know? And so, and what I've shown is, in the book, that even if we go for a quantum cosmological model, that has theistic implications as well, for for different but more subtle reasons, not because- ... It is the case that in those quantum cosmological models, the modelers don't get rid of the singularity. They presuppose it in their equations.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: But setting that aside, even if you can imagine a past eternal quantum mechanical state, to get to a universal wave function that includes a universe like ours, you have to constrain the underlying mathematics in an, in a way that's non-arbitrary, that requires a huge input of information. And in the modeling, that information is always provided by the intelligent physicist. So I wanna ask, what's actually being modeled? What's being modeled is the need for information coming from a mind to get a universe like ours.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Stephen Meyer: As one of the options, okay?

Sean McDowell: Gotcha. And that's chapters 18 and

Stephen Meyer: 19 in the book

Sean McDowell: ... In the book.

Stephen Meyer: It's the headiest stuff in the book, and it's not for everybody, but there it is. But that's just now is with the new book by Halper and F. Shortey, and by the way, I would highly recommend it. It's a great- ... Exposition of all the different models that are out there, and they're very clearly explained. But what what, my colleagues and I, Bruce Gordon, philosopher of physics, Brian Miller, a physicist, what we found in going through these models is that invariably they have one or more-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... Of these epistemic costs that I was describing, one of which is always, unexplained fine-tuning, and others which are often present is, are violations of known physical laws or principles, some mathematical sleights of hand, and Very typically, a multiplication of pure theoretical postulates, the of violations of of parsimony, of Occam's razor. So high epistemic cost for these infinite universe cosmologies, which is one of the reasons I argue that as best we can tell, the universe had a beginning. If the alternative models are baroque, convoluted in the, in the Occam's razor sense, if they involve violations of known- ... Well-established physics, and they have to invoke, additional sources of fine-tuning,

Stephen Meyer: better the than the evidence we have, not the proof, but the evidence we have of a beginning suggests that probably the beginning is a, th-that suggests that the universe, as best we can tell, did have a beginning. That's a better explanation. If you have to resort to explanations that are as convoluted as the ones that are being advanced and described in the F. Shorty and Helper book, then the the case for the beginning, I think, looks all the stronger.

Sean McDowell: Okay. So when I saw this book, "Battle of the Big Bang," I had a couple thoughts. I was like, "Awesome. People are still talking about what this means." My second thought was, I thought we started establishing the universe had a beginning about a century ago, and it was sometime in the middle to the end of the 20th century that multiple models came up, whether it's the steady state or the oscillating universe, trying to explain a way, a apparent beginning of the universe and maintain a eternal universe. I thought, I kind of thought this debate was dead, and yet it's reemerging. What's new with this book, and where are we at right now? Kind of frame what's at stake and why this conversation-

Stephen Meyer: I think that's very-

Sean McDowell: ... Is important

Stephen Meyer: ... A very interesting. Put it in historical perspective, because if you go back to the 19-teens and '20s-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... Einstein's theory of general relativity on its face, Einstein himself realized, implied a dynamic, expanding universe, that suggested a beginning. He gerrymandered his equations, as you may recall.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: What he he, postulated a a, an anti-gravity force called the cosmological constant, which we now think is a real thing. But what he also did was he gave the cosmological constant a very particular value- ... So that it would exactly balance the gravitational contraction so that he could portray the two forces as equiposed in perfect balance. Now, notice the move he made, because this is what's going on right up to the present. He fine-tuned the value of the cosmological constant. With enough fine-tuning, he could circumvent the impression that his equations otherwise gave of a beginning, of a dynamic, expanding universe outward from a beginning. And so fine-tuning has been in the toolbox of people who want to depict the universe as infinitely old from the very beginning of this debate. But then Einstein eventually came around. He, was challenged by Eddington to go out to Mount Wilson, see the evidence- ... That Hubble was acquiring of the redshift and the expanding universe, and later said that his attempt to gerrymander his own equations was the greatest blunder of his life.

Sean McDowell: That's amazing.

Stephen Meyer: I misquoted him in the book. I said, I quoted him as saying it was the greatest blunder of his

Sean McDowell: Career

Stephen Meyer: ... But it was of his, it was of his life. He said-

Sean McDowell: Oh, I didn't realize that

Stephen Meyer: ... His actual quote was of his life.

Sean McDowell: Interesting.

Stephen Meyer: So, and then we had the steady state model.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... 1960s, you get the cosmic background radiation, and that-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... That, for all intents and purposes, sounds the death knell to the steady state model. Then we have the oscillating universe model, which we were talking about before. That model, I think, was pretty much a spent force by the mid-'80s. The problem of, where do you get the new, where do you get new available energy to do work, and is there enough mass to cause a a recollapse? The conclusion was, no. Then there were other challenges that came, about, in the '90s. There was, little perturbations in the cosmic background radiation that had been predicted by the Big Bang but hadn't been observed before with this, the George Smoot stuff.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: So that provided further evidence. And I would, I would say the the hot Big Bang model is still the, is still the gold standard in cosmology. But what we're seeing now are very I would say, very clever attempts to model an infinite universe, past eternal universe using mathematics. And there's a, there's a book by a German author called "Lost in Math." And there is a sense where the human mind is infinitely creative, and we can model almost anything mathematically. But one of the reasons that I say that the, as best we can tell, the the postulation of a beginning provides the best explanation for the evidence that we have is that if you think about, a, dynamical expanding universe where galactic material is receding from us and where space is getting less and less curved as matter is getting more and more diffuse, you have actually-- What you're seeing is a dynamic expanding universe.

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm.

Stephen Meyer: If you back extrapolate, most naturally you come to some point past which you cannot go, a limiting case. There's nothing in the observational evidence that we have that suggests a static or steady state universe. You can posit ... Pre-Planck time static universe if you like, but there's nothing in what we see that suggests that as a natural conclusion. Whereas what we see in this dynamic expanding universe, which We back extrapolate. Does suggest a limiting case, and therefore a beginning. So there's a kind of prima facie obvious case for a beginning. There's also certain, paradoxical or there's certain explanatory conundrums that result for naturalism if you posit an infinite universe. For example, if you say, well, inside Planck time, maybe we had, or inside the Planck volume, we had an infinitely existing static universe, and maybe it was in a quantum state, maybe in some other kind of state. In whatever state it was, there's two possibilities. If it was infinitely, if it was infinitely old, if you could kind of think of it as a kind of infinite tail, that preceded the expansion of the universe or a cosmic egg that was infinitely old, either in that state, the necessary and sufficient conditions of a subsequent expansion were-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... Always present, okay,

Stephen Meyer: or they were not. If they were always present- ... If those conditions were always present, then we should expect to see evidence of an infinitely long expansion, of an expansion that's been going on for an infinitely long period of time. But that's not what we see. Empirically, we see evidence of a, of a, an expansion that's only finitely old. So that we should eliminate. That means that if we posit an infinitely old cosmic egg or tail on the expansion, that perhaps the necessary conditions of a subsequent expansion were there, but not the sufficient c-conditions. Not the conditions that would cause a subsequent expansion. In that case, something would've needed to be added to those merely necessary conditions to make those conditions sufficient. But that entity, whatever it was inside the Planck volume existing infinitely long into the past, was the whole of the universe. That's what we're positing the universe was inside that Planck volume, that tiny smidgen of space where the quantum effects apply, where maybe general relativity doesn't-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... Et cetera, et cetera. But that means if the universe as it existed from that infinite time did not have the necessary and sufficient conditions to cause a subsequent expansion, something from outside the system must have been added to create, to move it from mere n-n, from mere necessary conditions to causal sufficiency. But that means that a transcendent causal entity must have acted- ... To explain the expansion that ensued. And that causal entity, moreover, was not conditioned- ... Determined by any physical state within the universe because it was something separate from the universe. So you have something that looks-- And it it, its action occurred at a finite point in the past. So you have a discrete event that's not physically determined that comes from a transcendent causal entity. Now, theism would explain-

Sean McDowell: Totally

Stephen Meyer: ... How that happened. It would explain-

Sean McDowell: Totally

Stephen Meyer: ... Wh-why you had a subsequent-

Sean McDowell: Mm-hmm

Stephen Meyer: ... E-expansion, whereas I can't think of anything within a naturalistic framework that would do that. And in any case, the whole question of what, how you got from the cosmic egg or the cosmic tail to the expansion is unanswered o-on naturalism. So again, that's not a proof that the universe had a beginning, but the attempt to circumvent the beginning by invoking the indeterminate, features inside the Planck volume, the in-indeterminacy of the, of the pre-Planck time state don't really, don't really give you support for naturalism. They still point in a theistic direction.

Sean McDowell: Okay. So if I'm gonna frame this historically, if we go back a century, the, again, oscillating model and then the steady state theory kind of model, there was kind of one attempt at explanation that at least seemed to be pushed forward and promoted. Now we have, in "Battle of the Big Bang," 25 or so models, Penrose's model. Do you view this as saying, "Wow, these challenges are ramping up, and it's getting greater," or do you kind of view this as people are really starting to realize that it points towards the beginning of the universe, and it's kind of just a, an attempt to avoid this, and we're coming full circle saying, "Nope, what started a century ago is really clear"? Like, how would, how do you view the state of this in this book emerging, if that's fair?

Stephen Meyer: Well, I would leave it to readers to determine whether or not they detect underneath this proliferation of new models, a desperation.

Sean McDowell: Okay. [laughs]

Stephen Meyer: Okay? I tend to not want

Sean McDowell: That's fair

Stephen Meyer: ... Traffic in motivational arguments, okay?

Sean McDowell: Fair enough.

Stephen Meyer: But there is a very important argument from the history of science that's, from Kuhn's- ... "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." And that is that the proliferation of models is not the sign of a healthy research program- ... But it's the sign of a degenerate research program. Lakatos, I think, said the same thing. And so I don't, the When I had the debate with Halpern, when I would critique one model, he'd say, "Yeah, but there are these other models." And I'm not saying any one of them is right. I'm just saying the very fact that there are all these models suggests that we can't be We can't be asserting that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Well, my counter would be, first of all, the proliferation of models is the sign of a, of an unhealthy degenerate research program, not a healthy one. If the community can't congeal around one of the models as being clearly the best, or one or two as having great promise, then ... And in fact, F. Shortey, in describing his variable speed of light model, in which he suspends Einstein's limitation on the speed of light from special relativity as part of his model, and a few other very fundamental things in physics. He says, "Well, it may seem counterintuitive, but it's no worse than all the others."

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Stephen Meyer: You know? So that kind of a defense is not-

Sean McDowell: Interesting

Stephen Meyer: ... Really compelling. Anyway, the the degenerate a a proliferation of models is generally seen to be a a sign of a degenerate research problem- ... Program, not a healthy one. Oh, and then, and then the second thing is that if the models collectively are subject to the same types of problems-

Sean McDowell: Gotcha

Stephen Meyer: ... Then proliferating many of them doesn't solve the problem.

Sean McDowell: Doesn't help.

Stephen Meyer: Okay? And this is our claim, and we're gonna be coming out, my colleagues and I at Discovery, with a series of of blogs and podcasts on this, showing that as you go through the different models, that we we're actually ... And I did this to, in preparation for my debate with Halpern, is, I just developed little scorecards. You can score these models. Do they,

Sean McDowell: Interesting

Stephen Meyer: ... To what extent do they, proliferate,

Stephen Meyer: pure theoretical entities? To ... Well,

Sean McDowell: Wow

Stephen Meyer: ... Ad hoc theoretical entities. To what extent do they violate known principles of physics? To what extent do they, in involve themselves in some mathematical sleights of hand? And to what extent do they invoke unexplained fine-tuning? Invariably, they invoked unexplained fine-tuning, and many of the other problems were present in various combinations in in each of the different models. So I don't think the mere, the mere volume of output of the naturalistic cosmologists in formulating, past eternal, infinite universe cosmologies is evidence of a healthy research ... Program or evidence that the problem has been solved, that that they have come up with a better model for the origin of the universe than a model which affirms that there was a beginning.

Sean McDowell: Okay. So tell me where you're at. In a minute I'm gonna give people three things. In fact, I'll do it right now, and then I'll come back to you.

Stephen Meyer: Sure.

Sean McDowell: I think three things people can do following up with this. Number one, we're gonna have an in-depth response to the Penrose model, and the claim that you misrepresented it, and we're gonna walk through that. So look for that to come out. Second-

Stephen Meyer: And Sean, I would interject there that because our conversation was so rushed when we had it was ... It came at the end.

Stephen Meyer: It was a, it was a slightly confused discussion on our part.

Sean McDowell: Okay.

Stephen Meyer: Mine more so. And I did get one thing wrong. But the most fundamental thing which I claimed about the unexplained fine-tuning, I absolutely got right.

Sean McDowell: Good.

Stephen Meyer: And, but I wanna make sure that we represent Sir Roger's work accurately so that-

Sean McDowell: Right

Stephen Meyer: ... I'm grateful to you for agreeing to do a separate conversation-

Sean McDowell: Oh

Stephen Meyer: ... Just on this.

Sean McDowell: I'm thrilled.

Stephen Meyer: And also, I'm in touch with Phil, and, we can send him the link to it, and they can come back at us, and we'll just ... We're here not to win-

Sean McDowell: We'll keep the conversation going

Stephen Meyer: ... Not to win the argument, but to, get to the truth and to, and to clarify things. So I mean, this is ... We've reached a point, a really fascinating point in the, in the cosmological discussion. Because the, there is now a battle for the Big Bang, and there are the, all these new attempts to preserve an infinite universe cosmology in the face of the evidence, I think is just a fascinating turn in the conversation, and one which, we're very happy to engage. So, thank you for being willing

Sean McDowell: Oh my goodness

Stephen Meyer: ... Being willing to do that.

Sean McDowell: This

Stephen Meyer: And I'm not claiming,

Stephen Meyer: to be, always right or infallible in this, but I think that a subsequent discussion which we clarify the conversation, make very clear what Penrose is arguing, and then offer our critiques much more systematically will be clarifying for all sides in the discussion.

Sean McDowell: Love it. By the way, this is a win-win. I told my wife, I was like, "I'm interviewing my friend Steven Meyer," and I was trying to explain the models and this debate that's going on. So number one, look for that video to come out. We'll do part two. Number two, you've got a series of podcasts and articles coming out of Discovery Institute-

Stephen Meyer: Right

Sean McDowell: ... Where you respond to a bunch of these models. Third, check out your debate by Justin Brierley will- with Phil Halpern, which will be about three hours in length, which is great.

Stephen Meyer: Broken up into three separate hours, but it was, it was, ... I think Phil and I both thought it was sort of brutal. [laughs]

Sean McDowell: It was. So what should we know going into that, watching that? 'Cause a lot of this-

Stephen Meyer: Yeah

Sean McDowell: ... We can talk here, and we can make our argument-

Stephen Meyer: Right

Sean McDowell: ... But we're not being cross-examined, right?

Stephen Meyer: Yeah, right.

Sean McDowell: Proverbs 18:17 says, "The first to speak in court sounds right until the cross-examination begins." What should we keep in mind when we watch that debate?

Stephen Meyer: Well, I think first of all, that there is a new phase in the discussion of the, of cosmology and what it means for these big metaphysical questions. And I think that, it's, it's an exciting development that-

Sean McDowell: I agree

Stephen Meyer: ... That this is happening on both sides. Secondly, I think, from my point of view, the thing that may have been a bit difficult to get across in a conversational framing is that, it or in a conversational setting, is my framing of the argument. Phil kept in the discussion trying to position me as the arch defender of the singularity, okay? And I think the singularity theorems are highly suggestive. I don't think they provide a absolute proof. But we don't require proof in science to affirm something as a best explanation or the the go-to model or the best theory. And, so I think my argument has been, as best we can tell, the universe had a beginning for multiple reasons. But if you don't want to accept that, and you wanna model the universe alternatively as having, an infinite, infinitely long history, that it is past eternal, that the cost of such modeling has its own theistic implications. That's the, that's the framing that, and the, and the key element there is that look to the, where are you finding unexplained fine-tuning in the models? At the end of the debate, Justin asked us each to say what we had learned from the other guy, you know?

Sean McDowell: Oh, that's great.

Stephen Meyer: And he kept checking throughout the debate-

Sean McDowell: [laughs]

Stephen Meyer: ... To make sure we were feeling that the other guy was representing-

Sean McDowell: Fairly.

Stephen Meyer: You know, yes, fairly.

Sean McDowell: Justin's the best.

Stephen Meyer: Which is, which, no, he did, he did a fabulous job. And Phil was a great interlocutor, okay? But I don't think that he got this overall, I don't think he understood what I was trying to say. But one thing he did acknowledge was that he said at the end, he would have to think about Meyer's argument about the unexplained fine-tuning. That's something he had, he needed to think more about. And so I think that point I did at least get across. In any case, none of these really deep issues in cosmology and metaphysics, as, especially as to which worldview best explains what we're finding in the sciences, are settled by podcasts and debates. They really have to be settled in each person's own mind as you, as you lay out the the competing cases before you and begin to think about it. So these conversations that we're starting, I think, are invitations to other people who are interested in these ultimate questions, to begin your own investigation of this. And, we'll be in service of that, writing and blogging and podcasting more about this at the Discovery Institute, and I appreciate you opening this up here.

Sean McDowell: Oh, absolutely. I think if someone had told me when I really started this channel, "Yeah, Sir Roger Penrose, who did work with Hawking and one of the most recognizable and remarkable scientists of our day, would do a response to one of my YouTube videos," I'm not sure I would've believed. But I'm also encouraged

Stephen Meyer: You may not wanna lay too much stress on that. They may not wanna do it again, you know? And [laughs]

Sean McDowell: Well, I think it's, I think it's led to great continued conversation, which is what we all should want moving forward.

Stephen Meyer: It it certainly led to the debate with Halpern.

Sean McDowell: Good.

Stephen Meyer: Which it led to Halpern's video response to me that he put out after the debate, which has now led to our conversation, respond to, responding to Phil, and maybe it'll result in another debate. Who knows? So.

Sean McDowell: That would be amazing. So check out part two.

Stephen Meyer: Yeah.

Sean McDowell: We'll get into the weeds with your response to Penrose, and, we'll have some fun doing it. Dr. Stephen Meyer, love your book, Return of the God Hypothesis, and it's pretty remarkable. As I look at, when this was published, this says 2020. So it's 2021.

Stephen Meyer: 2021 is hardback, revised paperback 2023. That's when I had the epilogue in which I responded to Penrose- ... And Steinhardt, a couple of the other newer cosmological models. What Halpern and F. Shorty have shown is there's a whole lot more models [laughs] that to respond to. And, it, the series of blogs we're doing at Discovery with my colleagues Bruce Gordon and, Brian Miller, may result in another book. Who knows? So it's-

Sean McDowell: I love it

Stephen Meyer: ... Ongoing discussion. But I do, I would say we feel quite confident that the the theistic take on this is far superior to the naturalistic or materialistic one. The epistemic cost of philosophical naturalism- ... Is very high. You can hold it if you want, but, you're going to end up with some very complicated, convoluted kind of cosmological models that are equivalent to the sort of epicycles that people held when they were trying to hold onto the geocentric model in the face of the evidence that was coming out in favor of the the the heliocentric solar system model. This is one of the things about philosophy of science you learn, is that it's always, you can, if you're willing to hold enough auxiliary hypotheses, you can hold on to almost any idea, but the epistemic cost of that gets higher and higher and higher, and at a certain point, people finally say, "Okay, enough is enough. Let's go with the simpler, more elegant hypothesis." And I think theism is precisely that. It's the elegant hypothesis that explains why the universe, as best we can tell, has a beginning, why the universe is finely tuned, why we see information embedded in living systems, what, why we act as though the moral law is not optional, why we can trust the reliability of the mind, and on and on and on. Theism has broad explanatory power across both scientific and philosophical categories of thought.

Sean McDowell: That's a great note to end on. Appreciate you coming down here in person. Appreciate your work, your friendship personally, as well as for Biola and Talbot, and I'm looking forward to our deep dive response to Sir Roger Penrose.

Stephen Meyer: Thanks very much, Sean. Good to be with you. [upbeat music]