Hawking and God on the Discovery Channel

Last week I got to spend time in the NBC studio where they record Meet The Press — re-decorated for this occasion in a cosmic theme, with beautiful images of galaxies and large-scale-structure simulations in the background. The occasion was a special panel discussion to follow a Stephen Hawking special that will air on the Discovery Channel this Sunday, August 7. David Gregory, who usually hosts MTP, was the moderator. I played the role of the hard-boiled atheist; Paul Davies played the physicist who was willing to entertain the possibility of “God” if defined with sufficient abstraction, while John Haught played the Catholic theologian who is sympathetic to science.

The Hawking special is the kick-off episode to a major new Discovery program, called simply Curiosity. I predict it will make something of a splash. The reason is simple: although most of the episode is about science, Hawking clearly goes all-in with “God does not exist.” It’s not a message we often hear on American TV.

The atheistic conclusion is really surprisingly explicit. I had a chance to talk to someone at Discovery, who explained a little about how the program came about. The secret is that it was originally produced by the BBC — British audiences have a different set of expectations than American ones do. My completely fictional reconstruction of the conversation would go something like this. Discovery: Hey, blokes! Do you have any programs we could use to launch our major new series? BBC: Sure, we have a new special narrated by Stephen Hawking. Discovery: Perfect! That’s always box office. What’s it about? BBC: It’s about how there is no God. Discovery: Ah.

[Update: Alas, reality is intruding upon my meant-to-be-funny imaginary dialogue. The episode was actually originally commissioned by Discovery, not by the BBC, although it was produced in the UK. More power to Discovery!]

At first, I will confess to a smidgin of annoyance that an opportunity to talk about fascinating science was being sacrificed to yet another discussion about religion. But quickly, even before anyone else had the joy of pointing it out to me, I realized how spectacularly hypocritical that was. I talk about religion all the time — why shouldn’t Stephen Hawking get the same opportunity?

The more I thought about it, the more appropriate I thought the episode really was. I can’t speak for Hawking, but I presume his interest in the topic stems from similar sources as my own. It’s not just a coincidence that we are theoretical cosmologists who happen to go around arguing that God doesn’t exist. The question of God and the questions of cosmology arise from a common impulse — to understand how the world works at its most fundamental level. These issues naturally go hand-in-hand. Pretending otherwise, I believe, probably stems from a desire on the part of religious believers to insulate their worldview from scientific critique.

Besides, people find it interesting, and rightfully so. Professional scientists are sometimes irritated by the tendency of the public to dwell on what scientists think are the “wrong” questions. Most people are fascinated by questions about God, life after death, life on other worlds, and other issues that touch on what it means to be human. These might not be fruitful research projects for most professional scientists, but part of our job should be to occasionally step back and look at the bigger picture. That’s exactly what Hawking is doing here, and more power to him. (In terms of his actual argument, I’m sympathetic to the general idea, but would take issue with some of the particulars.)

Nevertheless, Discovery was not going to feature an hour of rah-rah atheism without a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. Thus, our panel discussion, which will air immediately after the debut of Curiosity (i.e., 9pm Eastern/Pacific). The four of us had fun, and I think the result will be an interesting program — and hopefully I did the side proud, as the only legit atheist participating. Gregory seemed to enjoy himself, and joked that he might have to give up politics to do a weekly show about cosmology. (A guy can dream…) But we all agreed that it was incredibly frustrating to have so little time to talk about such big issues. The show will run for half an hour; subtract commercials, and we’re left with about 21 minutes of substance. Then subtract introduction, questions, some background videos that were shown … we three panelists had about five minutes each of speaking time. Not really enough to spell out convincing answers to the major questions that have troubled thinkers for centuries. Hopefully some of the basic points came across. Let us know what you think.

108 Comments

108 thoughts on “Hawking and God on the Discovery Channel”

  1. Victory through sheer quality! – re the tweet.
    Now these are scientists who have actually done the investigations. You know, been there, seen it, done it – ; – )

    First up, Prof. Jim Tucker of the University of Virginia.
    Took over when Prof. Ian Stevenson died a short while back. Calm, clear, very focused.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZTtU7akrfQ

    Professor Robert Almeder, Georgia State Uni.
    On why reincarnation is “difficult” for some but actually many parents don’t have a problem hearing this. Mmm…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhMDU9GcVg

    Professor Ian Stevenson (the Man).
    Pick up this video for him at 05.55 – Stevenson’s strongest statement on his research? – “the evidence is suggestive of reincarnation”. Cautious and measured.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPNcwXVOQFM

    Professor Carl Jung.
    Fascinating comments from one many would regard as a great “intuiter” of the human condition. He’s been in there deeper than most. I love his comments on older folks.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOxlZm2AU4o&feature=related

    Professor David Fontana – Scole Group scientist.
    Psychologist par excellence and witness to the Scole phenomena in the UK and abroad. Clarity, scholarship, focus.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGV8aQxCsCI

    Montague Keen – Scole Group classics scholar.
    Here is a skeptical scholar of depth, doubting and focused, yet totally clear about what was seen by all in those investigations. Conclusion? LOD is real.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mti3oWINgY0&feature=relmfu

    Drs. Peter Fenwick and Sam Parnia.
    Parnia is in charge of the ongoing AWARE study – huge scientific NDE study with some data out next year. Still uncertain, which is good. Fenwick speaks here about deathbed visions and has researched clear evidential cases of “shared death experiences”. Here the carer and experiencer see the same thing. These are difficult to deny – also very clear about life after the big D.
    http://www.victorzammit.com/evidence/endoflife.htm

    Dr. Jeffrey Long, radiation oncologist.
    More of the same with a large database and concludes once again that there is an afterlife. “I’ve become convinced that near-death experiences establish the reality of life after death…” he begins.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mptGAc3XWPs

    Dr. Eben Alexander, neurosurgeon.
    After a remarkable and prolonged NDE he concluded after ruling out all “physical”, normal possibilities that there is life after death. Had experiences which as he says could NOT have come from “memories laid down in the brain.” Pick this up at 02.45 in the video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFvzHEepPQE&feature=related

    The common thread among these scientists? They have done the research and concluded, some tentatively, that the mind/awareness can exist without a physical body. Not sure I’m looking forward to it – bit of a leap in the dark. Arghhh…!!!

    But needs an explanation and seems to show we are living in a special place.
    (And thanks for the edit facility BTW!)

  2. Pingback: The curiosity conversation: a debate about Hawking and God « Why Evolution Is True

  3. “The question of God and the questions of cosmology arise from a common impulse — to understand how the world works at its most fundamental level. These issues naturally go hand-in-hand. Pretending otherwise, I believe, probably stems from a desire on the part of religious believers to insulate their worldview from scientific critique.”
    Nice rhetorical shot, but I think your assumption is wrong: the “question of” God” does not arise from a “impulse” to understand how the universe works! Science does, but it a misunderstanding to contend that religion aims at understatnding how the universe works.
    Cosmogonies question the origins of man and the universe in search for meaning, not its laws as science does!
    How this affects your conclusion as to the relationships between science and religion I will leave to the reader… but suffice it to say that if we admit that they stem from diferent sources and intents, not only do we understand better what religion and science are about, but we avoid a number of vain debates about wrong questions!

  4. I, once upon a time would have wrote a post very similar to many of these as a scientist and atheist. I spent years as a neurobiological researcher, studied anthropology and believed completely in rational science. I would go around with “narrow-minded Christians” who I fully believed blocked out the desire to understand science because they thought that it would disprove their beliefs. I would get angry because I felt they were holding back our country from moving forward. I said some pretty awful stuff and felt very self-assured. I was smart, they were ridiculous and out-dated–end of story. Then I got saved. I wish I could tell you how it happened but in the midst of my pride, my intelligence and my self-importance God loved me anyway. I feel blessed beyond measure at being a well educated scientist who is also a Christian. As I stood on my pulpit of science and told Christians that they were too narrow-minded to learn science I realized I knew very little about Christianity. I was arguing against it and was not well studied in it. Now, being well versed on both sides, I can say it is completely possible for both to exist. What I am about to say is for my fellow Christians who feel that scientists are their enemy:First of all, Christians must accept the fact that psychology, psychiatry and all physical and biological sciences are sciences ordained by the Lord which He also uses to glorify Himself. Period. That some things wrought forth through these sciences are erroneous and absolutely irrelevant to a Christian walk is a fact as old as the Fallen state of Man. That calls for us to exercise biblical discernment and wisdom. Furthermore, Man has corrupted everything he has gotten his hands on and the sciences are definitely no exception. Saddly, even the pulpit has been corrupted so no one can weep in it’s defense. I think it is important as a Christian to understand this and not turn your eyes from the sciences. They tell us about our God created world, they help us to understand our origins. There is nothing in the bible that speaks against many of Darwin’s theories for example. Survival of the fittest/natural selection is very much a way in which nature regulates itself. Why wouldn’t God create a world with order, the ability to regulate and so forth? Again, I am blessed to have knowledge in both areas and to have been able to see where they meet. For those who are agnostic or atheist. I do challenge you to step into a bible study, to learn more. What is there to be afraid of? It will either give you more wisdom to argue your point or you may begin to think differently. The only reason not to do it is out of fear that you might be wrong. Again, I hated Christians with every fiber of my being before I understood. My heart breaks for who I was and how close I was to utter ignorance when I felt so incredibly rational and intelligent. Examine both sides always whether you are a Christian against science or Scientist against Christianity. I value S. Hawking’s greatly and have read everything he has written. He is an amazing mind but don’t fool yourself that he has not created his own theology with him as his own God.

  5. Udaybhanu Chitrakar

    In olden-golden days the saying was: When there was nothing, there was God. When there will be nothing again, there will still be God.
    But then came the scientists and changed everything. The above saying also changed to this: When there was nothing, there were quantum laws. When there will be nothing again, there will still be quantum laws.
    These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless, changeless, eternal, all-pervading, unborn, uncreated and immaterial. Only that these laws lack consciousness. In every other respect they are just like God.
    These quantum laws are spaceless, timeless and immaterial, because when there was no space, no time and no matter, there were still these quantum laws. (Vilenkin’s model)
    These quantum laws are all-pervading, because these laws act equally everywhere.
    Quantum laws are scientists’ God.
    Amen.

  6. The following are the evidences to prove that Stephen Hawking has abused science to support his Big Bang theory in which gravity could exist prior to the formation of the universe to create something out of nothing since his theory has contradicted not only Isaac Newton’s principle, but also Eistein’s theory:

    The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’ as shown in the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:

    According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

    As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.

    The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’ that has been extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:

    The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..

    E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since no matter how big the number c is E is always equal to 0 when 0 (that is the mass) is multiplied by c2. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance (the mass). Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy ( E > 0) could exist even though there could not be any matter (that is m = 0) existed prior to the formation of the universe.

    Refer to the website address pertaining to Isaac Newton’s theory pertaining to The Unversal Law of Gravitation: ttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

    Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)/r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.

    Stephen Hawking might comment that Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles are wrong. However, Stephen Hawking was not born at the time prior to the formation of this universe to visualize how the universe could be formed initially. To jump into the conclusion that the gravity could be created from something out of nothing is simply out of his own imagination. Not only that, his theory contradicts both Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles pertaining to gravity.

  7. From the time of the very auspicious inception of the civilization, mankind is continuing to find out the correct answer to the question about universe creation or creator. Aborigines have taking up the considerations of the causes by religious thoughts in different ways as consolations as there was no real answer or solutions to the questions. Professor Hawking announced “There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe” As a result of the progress of the civilization in the present situation, it became possible to find out the correct solutions to the questions about nature, universe and question about the creation in the majority of the cases according to the rules or provisions of science. See into- Religious at http://t.co/OQDPbAg See vision- Religious & Science Logic- http://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/science-religion-logic/

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top