Stephen Hawking has a new book coming out (The Grand Design, with Leonard Mlodinow). Among other things, he points out that modern physics has progressed to the point where we don’t need to invoke God to explain the existence of the universe. This is not exactly a hot flash — I remember writing an essay making the same point for a philosophy class my sophomore year in college — but it makes news because it’s Hawking who says it. And that’s absolutely fine — Hawking has a track record of making substantial intellectual contributions, there’s every reason to listen to him more than random undergraduates waxing profound.
This issue is, of course, totally up my alley, and I should certainly blog about it. But I can’t, because I’m on hiatus! (Right?) So, as an experiment, I made a video of myself talking rather than simply typing my words into the computer. Radical! Not sure the amount of information conveyed is anywhere near as large in this format, and obviously I didn’t sweat the production values. I fear that some subtleties of the argument may be lost. But if we’re lucky, other people elsewhere on the internet will also talk about these questions, and we’ll get it all sorted out.
Let me know if the Grand Video Experiment is worth repeating and improving, or whether it’s just a waste of time.
Something that I should have said, but didn’t: there doesn’t need to be some sophisticated modern-physics answer to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The universe can simply exist, end of story. But it’s still fun to think carefully about all the possibilities, existence and non-existence both included.
amphiox, Hawking and Carroll can’t credibly comment on either of those questions you fault theologians over any more than the theologians can, though I’d expect that what theologians have to say would tend to be more detailed and complex and, likely, more interesting. And, as science can’t deal with those questions and that is where Hawking and Carroll’s professional credibility comes from, why is what they saying about the question taken as authoritative? They, clearly, expect to be taken to have some kind of authority derived from their profession when that idea is pretty irrational.
Hawking is qualified to have ideas about the subject of God but he doesn’t have any more authority on that subject derived from his study of the physical sciences which exclude any consideration of God. He has the exact same qualification as any other person has to think about the subject, his profession adds absolutely nothing to that qualification any more than it would prepare him to expound on history or arts criticism. I’d really like to hear how, for example, his study of physics would prepare him to authoritatively expound on the separation of church and state.
Most academic fields of study have standards of research and writing a lot closer to theology than they do science, there are huge swaths of human culture and life that are too complex to be treated with science. Are you saying that history, the law, and other fields like that have no professional credibility because of the standards required by their fields of study?
I’m finding the emotional drive behind this effort to be really interesting. It really does bother you folks that people have their own ideas on this, doesn’t it.
@Anthony:
I would think that in-depth study of the physical laws of the universe would make one amply qualified to comment on whether those physical law require some form of “god” in order to operate.
You also seem to be conflating the idea of “god” with that of “religion”. No-one is denying that religion exists, and so to claim that showing god to be unnecessary is somehow similar to commenting on separation of church and state is very disingenuous.
James, the first thing I said here pointed out that the tools and methods of science rigorously exclude the consideration of anything other than the physical universe, using them to address a question that, then, introduces the subject of God is illegitimate. It’s certainly not rational. It’s obviously not science. What Hawking says about subjects outside of his professional competence has no more credibility than what a plumber or sales clerk might say about it. Though as Hawking uses his science as a platform for saying it, there might be less of a reason to take it seriously. There is nothing in science that can be applied to that question, it’s no more legitimate to assert that than the phony “intelligent design” attempt to use science in a related way to a different end.
I don’t think that there is any one thing that is “religion”. So you don’t seem to have understood that point.
The issue of “church and state” is a political and not a religious question, I could have easily used the right to due process or the right to enter into contracts. Maybe I should have for the sake of clarity. There was nothing disingenuous about it, considering the question was what part of Hawking’s professional credentials prepared him to comment on things entirely outside of his professional area.
I didn’t expect to like the video, but I did like it. It got right to the point, and the clarity provides the necessary punch. Generally, I prefer to read, with math as needed.
You (or Hawking) make the bare assertion that the universe adds to nothing. (Stenger has also asserted this.) This is a key point, and I’m pretty sure you can justify it, but I’d like to explain it to my siblings. To do so, I need to know: what are the terms that add to zero, what is the theory for each term, what is the theory that requires them to add in this way. The addition, we can do, but the credibility depends on the justification for each term and the operation itself.
I have Einstein’s “The Meaning of Relativity” right here, and Meisner/Thorne/Wheeler’s “Gravitation” on a shelf gathering dust. Refer to these as needed, or something else, and I’ll dig into it. Thanks. We need to know how it adds.
Sean, nice try but no cigar. Parenthetically, I have listened to your course from The Teaching
co and enjoyed it.
It is more than a bit illogical to talk about the universe obeying its “own laws” and yet conclude
that it functions intirely on its own. Presumably that means to you that out of nothing came the
laws by which the universe functions, or are you saying the universe came out of nothing and then,
before developing, somehow came up with the laws it was thereafter to follow. Sorry. It just
doesnt wash. In my opinion today’s quantum physicists have gone off the charts and are a little
too carried away with themselves. Time will show how much of their theory is wrong. String Theory
is a perfect example of what I call arrogant nonsense. It proves absolutely nothing and cannot be
proven by any known method; its just someone’s fancy idea like the physicist who is into making
circles and then circles of circles, etcl; just jibberish nonsense. tony
Hi Miles,
That God doesn’t exist (or there is no evidence for his existence), and that the universe clearly does exist, is what I meant by “’with one obvious difference”.
Either the existence of the universe is contingent (it may not have existed) or necessary (it could not have failed to exist). However, a contingent explanation for why the universe exists rather than not can only fail, because, being contingent, it inherently admits the possibility the universe might not have existed. As such, only an appeal to the necessity of existence can potentially provide a satisfactory answer. Furthermore, as it needs to show that existence is inescapable, such an appeal will clearly need justification, whether physical or logical. Stating that the universe “just is”, end of story, doesn’t help in this respect, as it doesn’t represent an argument. It seems to me to be a cop-out for people unable to fathom what an answer, even just in principle, might look like.
Best wishes
Peter
Anthony McCarthy: “Well, science has come into conflict with science many times.”
Yes, thank you, but that was a response to the claim that theology and science are in separate realms and cannot conflict with one another.
Escuerd, Well, thank you for identifying yourself, because after I’d taken the quote I couldn’t find where I’d taken it from and didn’t want to have to re-read the entire thread.
First, that there have been conflicts about science with religious people is true, it doesn’t do anything to de-legitimate religious belief in general, it only means that there are people who can hold ideas that are refuted by science. People do for any number of reasons, including scientists on the basis of their preferences and understanding within science. That’s a fact about the ability of people to not be convinced, not about the reality or not of God. That some atheists seem to want to use that fact ONLY in the case of religion, ignoring the real nature of the problem and distorting it, to some extent dishonestly, to bash religious belief leads me to think that it’s not entirely rational.
The fact that there are successful scientists who also believe, quite sincerely, in God, some of them with an impressive publication record, even in physics, is all the proof available that there isn’t any necessary conflict between that belief and science. There are even biblical fundamentalists who have successful careers in science, though I wouldn’t take them as entirely reliable on the topic of evolutionary science, so even biblical fundamentalism isn’t a bar to practicing science. I’m sorry if those facts make some people unhappy but it is evidence that there is something basically wrong with the idea that science and religion are in some kind of unbridgeable conflict. As that evidence exists in real life instead of in theory, it’s more credible in a way that I was always told that mattered to science.
I don’t, obviously, believe that NOMA is a valid idea because of that, though it’s a more rational idea than the idea that there is an unalterable conflict between religious belief and science because the evidence against that idea is obvious and it has been since the invention of science. I believe H. Allen Orr might have made a similar argument on the subject.
I did not say that Quantum Mechanics is decidable or not, but I said that a Theory of Everything must be undecidable, since it must contain arithmetics because it is a theory of everything.
There are very nice explanations in that video but I think there are two points which need to be stressed more or added
1 God never really had a role in science before anyway because to invoke god as a sloution to existence involves infinite regression and of course makes no testable predictions. You may as well just postulate the universe exists (as you mention one can) as postulate god exists then created it.
2 Hawkins argument involves many elements not tested experimentally. Believers can still think that god created the universe and be consistent with science. They simply can’t state there is no framework in science which could explain the universe existing to motivate their belief.
YES, YESSS !! Science has proved the existence of God !! I KNEW the day would come !!!!
What ? Hawking didn’t say that ??!!
Humph, why would I believe someone who couldn’t even quantize gravity ?
And in any case, science can’t say anything about God.
@Anthony: Do I need to have studied invisible pink unicorns for several years before concluding that invisible pink unicorns are not necessary for the laws of physics to work?
Oh, good Lord. Not the pink unicorns again.
Unicorns are supposed to be a part of the physical universe, they were supposed to be animals you could trap because they would lay their heads in the laps of virgins.
I’ll leave it to impartial readers of this discussion to judge who has a more rational understanding of these issues without resorting to the Randian mode of argument through appeal to prejudice and mockery.
We have space for pink unicorns too. Those are absolutely essential.
The whole science on the basis of which Hawking thinks he is knowledgeable has been proved wrong & baseless by putting forward theory of everything. The theory is in the process of being published and a copy of the theory has been sent to Washington Post and Hindustan Times and most of the science journals . The theory of everything is a theistic theory. If any body wants the theory contact shafiqifs@gmail.com.
Mohammad Shafiq Khan
I’ll leave it to impartial readers of this discussion to judge who has a more rational understanding of these issues
Well the impartial readers are tired, simply exhausted, by your ruminating on your fucking god. Who is this god? Certainly not Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, in whom a very large population of the planet believe. Perhaps you are referring to Zeus or Odin. Maybe you are struggling to add Allah in your god head? I can’t imagine Wakantanka is so easily ascribed, but you are the praiser of all things theology. You blah blah blah and yada yada on how theology holds this epistemological power but you can’t even begin to express from whence “this” theology came.
You wrote and i quote: “As that evidence exists in real life instead of in theory,” and then argue that perception based-science fails to take into consideration the theological underpinnings of those who hold views based in faith. Such muddled thinking, followed by sophomoric insulting (the pink unicorn comment was quite apropos actually), are the hallmarks of irrational thought.
Spyder, exactly what part of what I wrote here are you talking about? Exact wording.
Hawkings can say what he wants. People will believe as they choose; God or no God…
Dislike video. With only a satellite internet the bandwidth is not adequate for the task! Also, add some sound damping; echo is annoying…
pink unicorns!!! we know that for the for the earth and man to exist a million things had to
“go right”; even the slightest change in any of them and poof, we would not have come into
existance. As soon as YOU use the word laws, you are in trouble. Laws , by definition, are not
random but the product of some intelligence (and i dont mean to include congress in that by any
means). Do you believe the laws themselves are random or reflective of some sort of intelligence?
If the latter , then you get no cigar. If the former , you get the rasberry for foggy thinking . what say you sean?
The video was effective for me. Well done. More, please.
Thanks. I have learned several things.
1. information and computation for a universe require no energy from that universe.
2. universes arise spontaneously from the laws of physics
3. a large (infinite) number of random universes must be tried before finding one that works
4. there is no fitness function so they all keep going forever (by whose clock?)
5. Hawking knows that most theists believe God created the laws of physics
6. Hawking knows that multiverse ideas have no bearing on theism
7. Hawking knows that attacking God in bold headlines will sell more books.
Hawking is more confused than I am.
Hmmm, so Hawking, as a scientist, should not speculate on God or religion because it is not
his area of expertise…..well, just who is an “expert” on non-existent, supernatural entities?
Theologians are experts in their own dogma. Gould’s NOMA–non-overlapping magisteria- is
just pusillanimous political correctness making him sound like a pompous ass. One of those M’s
is evidence-based, rational, capable of correction and modification, capable of being replicated, and
congruent with reality. The other is faith based, irrational, dependent on magic and non-replicatible
miracles, unmodifiable, unfalsifiable. IMO one is a magisterium, the other is a con-job.
@Gordon
Philosophers of religion, many of whom are atheist, are a much better starting point that most scientists, at least considering the degree to which I have had to explain the basic tenets of world religion to my colleagues.
Gordon, Hawking can speculate all he wants to but he shouldn’t pretend that science, which excludes anything other than information about the physical universe, could contain information relevant to that question.
When you’re coming up with a model it really does matter what you put into it and what you exclude from it. If you want to address a question with a method or model or process that has already excluded anything relevant to that question then it’s irrational to expect to find an answer to that question with it.
What other areas of life that don’t fall within the subject matter of science are you willing to call a con job on the same basis?
I’m finding it pretty telling how you guys go from condemning religion as being dependent on authority to practicing exactly that. Just as Hawking did in that recent interview, while speaking authoritatively to a receptive audience that doesn’t seem to notice his profession can’t deal with the matter on which he is taken to be authoritative by the same people who pretend they don’t do that. Apparently integrity is a sometimes thing with you.
The headline of Hawking’s Wall Street Journal article is “Why God Did Not Create the Universe”. Either Hawking did not write that headline or Sean is wrong about what Hawking is trying to say.
Doesn’t information science also have something to say about this? Existence appears to be computational since a certain amount of information and computation are needed to compute the physical laws and represent the quantities of a universe. Multiverse ideas require an infinite number of universes. So existence must have infinite computational power and infinite information capacity for such a multiverse. So Occam has to decide whether an infinite number of random useless universes with no convergence mechanism for the finely tuned physical constants is a simpler explanation than God. Does this really warrant the arrogance coming from atheists?