Sunday night the Discovery Channel and The Learning Channel simulcast a CuriosityTV special on Stephen Hawking’s opinion of whether God created the universe, based on his book The Grand Design. The “eye of Hawking” seemed to pierce the depths of the universe as he pondered the meaning of existence.
Hawking concludes that God was not needed to create the universe. His reasoning is not hard to follow. First, he says that we know from quantum physics that something can be created from nothing, as long as anti-something is created with it so that the total is still nothing. Hence, our universe adds up to nothing when summed up with an anti-universe somewhere and therefore needs no creator. Secondly, he says time ceases to exist at the big bang and since there is no time, there is no room for God. Nothing can exist when time ceases to exist. Thirdly, he says we see a continuous chain of causal effects, leaving no causal gap for God to fill.
By his definition of God, he may have a point. But is that the God we Christians worship? In the followup Creation conversation, aired immediately following the CuriosityTV program, Christians such as John Haught and Jennifer Wiseman point out that the Christian view of God is quite different. God is the source of all laws of nature, not a solution to a gap in those laws. He is beyond time and not constrained by time. A universe where matter and anti-matter can appear is one that is created and sustained by God.
Sean Carroll asks John Haught at one point: “What would the universe look like if God didn’t exist?” Haught: “Then the universe would not exist!” Carroll: “So God necessarily exists?” Haught: “Yes!”
That pretty well sums it up.
|
|||||
Did God Create the Universe?17 comments to Did God Create the Universe? |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2012 ASA Voices - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Randy, I have to admit that I don’t follow Hawking here–especially in his definition of nothing. A universe that behaves according to quantum physics is not nothing. It has properties and behaviors and laws and the like. Where did those come from? Hawking is equivocating on nothing. Is this not an obvious objection?
I agree with Terry but I wouldn’t state it as a failure to follow Hawking. Hawking simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to philosophy and theology. Hawking is not equivocating, he’s just ignorant. There’s no reason to think that he knows what the theological tradition has meant in speaking about creatio ex nihilo.
I too agree that the argument is specious. Even if, quantum mechanically speaking, you have “nothing,” you still have the environment in which the creation of the matter/anti-matter is possible. That may be “nothing” in a mathematical sum of “matter” but not in the philosophical sense.
The other point I noticed in listening to it again, is the continued focus on God as a causal factor in lieu of laws of nature. Its the mutual exclusivity that pervades our thinking and allows them to garner attention by saying, “we don’t need to explain anything and so there isn’t a God.” If that’s the only role for God, we are impoverished indeed.
Randy
As a Pastor I am concerned that we need the brightest and best from among Jesus’ disciples to enter into the fields now dominated by materialists. I try to share as many articles as I can with educators in our churches. Thanks for reminding us about Curiosity?. I passed your note to our leadership.
I found one early part of the series of shows interesting and wondered about the response. After Jennifer Wiseman’s comment I recall the response included a phrase like, “She’s a believer, though it doesn’t effect her work.” I would assume the opposite is true. She is an excellent scientist because she is a believer.
I thought Hawking did a good job of attacking Zeus. Wondered about his attack on the God of Scripture. I suspect God is at work and may be touching the universe at that mysterious quantum level where things “pop in and out of existence” at random. I believe that they are not random and that they create ripples which shape all existence.
But, the God of the Bible is primarily personal. To each generation God makes God’s self known in language and figures which are significant to the individual. Beside that, in these days “he has finally made himself known through a Son.”
God is person and has revealed that person in Jesus. It is interesting to try to focus one’s ministry on a relationship to Jesus Christ in a culture that assumes that those who speak this way are fundamentalist, right-wing evangelical or biblical literalists. I am none of those. I find much of what passes for science in the popular Christian culture is embarrassing and creates an environment which discourages young disciples of Jesus from entering fields where their understanding and influence is so needed.
Sorry, I am preacher. (a Baptist one at that) Thanks for the great articles. Thanks for the hope you bring to those of us who believe that the work of science really is looking at the work of the Grand Artist. As they discover the nature of the Master’s work, our awe and joy in our relationship to the Word continues to grow.
map
In my mind, it does not follow logically that because particles pop in and out of existence in the universe (once the universe exists) that the universe itself must have popped into existence. Hawking simply assumed an equality through speculation. But, particles now have a universe with laws that permit those particles to act the way they do and a structure or context in which these actions can play out and balance each other. This is hardly “nothing” and Hawking’s speculation is hardly science. Hawking’s speculation may sell books, but it is little more than marketing.
It’s not just speculation, it’s bad speculation. He’s speculating about things he hasn’t bothered to study. It’s like someone who knows nothing about physics suggesting that maybe E = m^2c .
I agree with Georege Murphy. Hawking has fallen into the trap many non-believing scientist fall. This is well expressed in the ASA :1986 publication: “Science continually raises philosophoical questions that go beyond the competence or perview of science.” It is too bad that a capable physicist like Hawkings has underminded his reputation by going ‘beyond the perview of science.’
George describes his position well: ignorance!
Ken Touryan
Stephen Hawking continues to be a man that both amazes me and frustrates me. I have a great deal of respect for him and read his popular works with enthusiasm. He has a very large platform for his ideas. He is highly respected and has become a “rock-star” in the scientific world. He is likely the most famous mathematician who has ever lived and he has received many awards for his work in both mathematics and physics. In more recent years he has become a vocal atheist and philosopher. Although he would say that philosophy is dead, there is little doubt that as he speaks of cosmology (the nature of the universe) he often strays into the areas of philosophy and cosmogony (the study of how the universe came to be).
In this episode of “Curiosity” Hawking makes bold statements about how science can explain the universe such that there is now no need for God. He suggests that those who hold to a belief that God did create the universe are simple minded. He compares them to ancient Vikings who screamed at the “wolf god” to prevent it from eating the sun as they experienced a solar eclipse. He apologizes to people of faith and then firmly states that there is no God, no heaven, and no after-life.
Stephen Hawking’s reasoning goes something like this. First, Hawking says that we can mathematically analyze our universe in ways that allow us to “see” the creation of our universe right up to the “Big Bang” from which our universe sprang. So far, so good, Hawking and other physicists have the technical knowledge of math and science that allows them to analyze such things.
Second, he maintains that for most things in the universe “it takes something to make something.” You can’t make a mountain of dirt without taking dirt from a hole in the ground. However, the universe, he claims, is the ultimate “free lunch.” Quantum physics suggests that subatomic particles can spring into existence out of nothing. I would want to check with physicists to see if they would agree that this is what is happening at the subatomic level. Perhaps others would express it as not knowing the source of such particles. But, for the moment let us concede this point to Professor Hawking. He states that when we consider anti-energy, anti-matter, and other universes, everything sums up to zero. So, as long as the net sum is zero, the universe can come to exist out of nothing (at least nothing in our universe). Okay, that was the hard one to understand. Hang in there for one or two more paragraphs before you give up on this blog.
Third, Hawking says that, at the Big Bang, time came into existence. Therefore, we cannot talk about a time when God existed before the creation of the universe because there was no time prior to the Big Bang and God could not be in a place where there was no time. Plus, we have filled in all of the gaps in our understanding of the universe and there is no need for God. Therefore, God does not exist. That, in simplified terms, is the argument Hawking wishes us to follow and with which he would like us to agree.
Okay, let us analyze this argument for a moment. Just because I don’t see a need for something does not mean that thing does not exist. Hawking might have convinced me of his argument if he had said that “there is an alternative explanation of how the universe came to be and the explanation does not require God.” I might grant him that and we could agree to disagree on which explanation suits our philosophical understanding (since we are now solidly in the realm of philosophy, theology, and cosmogony). But the leap from “we don’t need God to explain the origins of the universe” to “there is no God” is too great for me. Even other atheists have pointed out the weakness of this argument. As for there being no time before the Big Bang, one can readily see that if God exists, He would surely exist outside of time. Einstein’s theory of relativity readily shows us ways in which God might indeed be able to see all of time at once and stand outside of it. Again, Hawking can say that there is an alternative explanation that does not require God but this is not the same as saying “God cannot exist.”
Curiosity, I am all for it! I think it is appropriate to ask the questions proposed in this television program. We should seek to learn all we can about this amazing universe. We should seek to explain how things came to be in the world in which we find ourselves. We should hear from scientists who wish to explore these topics as well. But science and mathematics are still not the only tools we use for analyzing our world. Philosophy and theology continue to be valid disciplines which add to our understanding of the questions and the answers. I usually appreciate the Discovery Channel programming and the way they challenge us to think, dream, investigate, and experience the world. Unfortunately, this program was more entertaining than it was educational. The questions raised and the answers given were far too simplistic and biased. There is a way in which these questions can be asked and answered that leads to a greater sense of awe about the God who calls us into relationship with Him.
Hyperlinks:
Curiosity = http://curiosity.discovery.com/
here = http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/did-god-create-the-universe-videos
philosophy is dead = http://hungerandthirst4.blogspot.com/2011/01/philosophy-is-dead.html
other atheists have pointed out the weakness of this argument = http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/08/07/live-blogging-curiosity-hawking-and-god/
I’ve been away for a while, but having similar discussions on another list. Here are some brief comments.
1) Hawking’s position is either confused or must be nuanced. He holds to an instrumentalist view of science’s products. So how are we to take his pronouncements regarding its theories, esp. those that are highly speculative. At best, they might be said to be coherent.
2) QM processes are statistically deterministic. As far as I can tell, however, (and this is where George can help) it is silent on the nature of individual events. As a result, the nature of individual events are under-determined. This has permitted an entire cottage industry to grow up regarding what can happen for individual events. It is at this individual level, that notions of a quantum vacuum have flourished. Phenomena like the Casmir effect are explained by it. It is even uncertain to me at the level of individual events what constraints are placed on events. For this reason it is odd that individual events are radically indeterminant, whereas at the statistical level they are strictly determinant.
3) I still have problems with the GR notion of time coming into existence. Time in relativity is an operational quantity. A long time ago Aristotle questioned the notion of there being a beginning as incoherent. I still believe that to be true, and the only way it can make sense is to take time to be a relative concept (Type B).
bill
2 Comments. 1st, Whether or not quantum theory allows particles to appear from “nothing” depends on the definition of “nothing.” If it means simply a total absence of energy then yes, quantum theory (plus relativity) allows this. Particles could be produced in a state of zero energy and initially no particles, their kinetic + rest energy being cancelled by their negative gravitational energy. But there have to be quantum fields which obey appropriate equations and the laws of quantum theory for that to be possible, and that ain’t nothing.
In fact, in classical Christian theology the nihil of creatio ex nihilo is not just the absence of things but the denial of their being, the nihil negativa.
So Hawking’s physics is OK but the religion he attacks is a straw man – or a bit more generously, the theology of Sunday School kids. That’s typical of many of the current crop of atheists. Their contempt for religion is so great that they don’t bother to learn anything about how intelligent adult believers understand their faith – i.e., theology.
2d, I think the idea of a beginning of time in some relativistic cosmologies makes sense. The fact that big bang space-times are singular doesn’t mean that strange things happen at some event (like curvature & density becoming infinite) but that space-time is incomplete. There really is no event with the conventional label t = 0. (As I think Gertude Stein said about Oakland, “There’s no there there.”) So time has a beginning in a limiting sense, though one can’t really say that it begins “at t = 0.” All due respect to Aristotle but he didn’t know about general relativity and its singularity theorems.