Tonight’s the premiere of Curiosity on the Discovery Channel, featuring Stephen Hawking talking about cosmology and God, followed by the “Curiosity Conversation” panel that I’m on along with David Gregory, Paul Davies, and John Haught. Hawking’s hour-long show is scheduled for 8pm Eastern/5pm Pacific, and will then repeat 3 hours later (11E/8P). Our half-hour panel discussion follows immediately afterward — you do the arithmetic.
There’s a lot to say about these shows, and in particular there’s a huge amount that we didn’t have time to say during the panel. So as I sit in front of the TV, I’ll be live-blogging along by adding updates to this post. This will be the early show, so the fun will happen 8pm-9:30pm Eastern. Hey, Nathan Fillion live-tweets during Castle, so why not me? There is also a chat going on at the Discovery site.
The main attraction of Hawking’s program is not that he has disproven the existence of God. Certainly I don’t think he’s going to be changing the minds of many religious believers. His argument is essentially that the universe is self-contained, and doesn’t really have “room” for God (nor any need to invoke a creator). It’s very easy to wriggle free of that conclusion, if you are inclined not to accept it.
But “changing people’s minds” isn’t the only reason to talk about something, even about controversial issues. Religion, like sex and death, is one of those topics where it’s very difficult to simply have a dispassionate discussion without making people uncomfortable. It can happen within a group of similarly-minded people, of course, but once a wider range of views gets involved, it’s hard to maintain comity. (Comedy, on the other hand, is pretty easy.) I don’t mean everyone has to agree — just the opposite. We should be able to talk about things we completely disagree on, while still maintaining level heads.
That’s why I think this episode of Curiosity is potentially important. It’s a forthright statement of a view that doesn’t often get aired in American media. Even if nobody’s mind is changed, simply talking rationally about this issues would be a step forward.
Pre-show update: I should note ahead of time that I was not wearing a tie. Haught, Davies, and Gregory were all wearing ties. But Hawking wasn’t. Maybe atheists don’t wear ties? (Although I’m pretty sure Jesus never wore a tie, either.)
Start: We begin with a disclaimer! These are Stephen Hawking’s opinions, not those of Discovery. 🙂
4 minutes: I hope the analogy here is clear. “People who believe God made the universe are kind of like the Vikings shouting at the Sun to stop a solar eclipse.”
8 minutes: Snark aside, the message here is a fundamental one. Nature obeys laws! Something that’s certainly not a priori obvious or necessary, but a really profound truth.
14 minutes: I wasn’t able to find an independent confirmation of this story about Pope John XXI condemning the idea of “laws of nature.” (It’s true that he did die when the roof collapsed.) Presumably this refers to the Condemnations of 1277.
20 minutes: The universe is a big, messy, complicated, and occasionally quite intricate place. On the face of it, the idea that it’s all the working-out of some impersonal patterns of matter and energy, rather than being constructed by some kind of conscious intelligence, is pretty remarkable. (But true nonetheless.)
27 minutes: Hey, a tiny ad for Discovery Retreats!
28 minutes: Hawking says Einstein might be the greatest scientist ever. He has long favored Einstein over Newton, I’m not sure why. Hawking appeared on an episode of Star Trek: TNG, where he was a hologram playing poker with Einstein, Newton, and Data. He actually wrote the script, and Newton doesn’t come off well.
36 minutes: Ah, negative energy. Depends on what you mean by “energy,” but this isn’t the venue to get overly technical, obviously. Roughly, matter has positive energy and gravity has negative energy. That’s hopefully enough to help people swallow the crucial point: you can make a universe for nothing. There isn’t some fixed resource, out of which we can make a universe or two, before we hit Peak Universe. There can be an infinite number of universes.
41 minutes: People on Twitter are asking why Hawking doesn’t have a British accent. He easily could, of course; voice-synthesis technology has come quite a way since he first got the system. But he’s said that he now identifies with that voice he got years ago, and doesn’t want to change it; it’s identified with him.
47 minutes: Okay, here’s the payoff. He’s saying that generally we’re used to effects being caused by pre-existing events. (The first step toward a cosmological argument for God’s existence.) You might think that a chain of causation takes you back to the Big Bang, which then requires God as a cause. But no! The Big Bang can just … be.
50 minutes: The point of the black hole discussion is to get to the idea of a singularity, a conjectural point of infinite curvature and density. The Big Bang, in classical general relativity, is also a singular moment. But classical GR isn’t right. We need quantum gravity. Hawking believes that quantum gravity smooths the singularity and explains how there was no pre-existing time. (At least in the TV show, unlike A Brief History, he doesn’t start talking about “imaginary time.”)
56 minutes: Ultimately Hawking’s argument against God is pretty simplistic. He assumes that if God created the Big Bang, God must have existed before the Big Bang, but there was no “before the Big Bang,” QED. It’s easy enough to simply assert that God doesn’t exist “within time” (if that means anything). It would have been better (IMHO) to emphasize that modern cosmology has many good ideas about how the universe could have come to be, so there’s no need to rely on a divine creator.
58 minutes: Final thought from SWH: no life after death! Enjoy it while you’re around, folks. An important message.
Panel discussion starts: Forgot to mention that Paul Davies has shaved off his moustache. Disconcerting.
4 minutes: Also disconcerting: watching myself on TV. Hate it. But I persevere for the greater good.
5 minutes: Here’s Michio Kaku, not saying very much.
7 minutes: Jennifer Wiseman and I were actually grad students together! She’s good people, even if we disagree about the whole God thing.
9 minutes: I come out in favor of basing purpose and meaning on reality. But I’m pretty sure a longer remark was cut off there. Arrrrgh! Nothing nefarious, we intentionally recorded a bit more than they had time to show. But enormously frustrating that there was so little time.
13 minutes: Not sure why we kept talking about the multiverse. Hawking didn’t bring it up, did he?
17 minutes: I thought a lot of what Haught said was not even really trying to argue in favor of God’s existence, but simply expressing a desire that he exist. “God is the grounding of hope” isn’t evidence for God’s existence.
22 minutes: Haven’t said anything completely silly yet, so that’s good. But so little time…
27 minutes: Always time for more Michio!
30 minutes: Arrrrgh again, this time for real: in the live conversation, I had the last word and it was a pretty good one. In the televised program, not so much. Had to end wishy-washy.
Thanks for tuning in. Wouldn’t it have been wonderful to have the time for a real conversation? But big ups to Discovery for hosting the panel at all — it’s a rare event on TV.
Sean, thanks for doing the live blog. I really liked your supplemental explanations.
The chat/twitter feed wasn’t so good.
(To everyone talking to me…I’m distracted, forgive.) Yes, but there isn’t much difference between papal ‘fact checkers’ and scientific ‘fact checkers’. Either way, it still demands the individual suspend their own ability to witness and simply -believe-. (Which…is basically ‘faith’)
Theories, laws, bible verses all have a singular commonality, they are all written by the hand of men, and are words on paper to the average person. (Excluding in the cases where the proof is able to be demonstrated…thank goodness for telescopes appropriately priced for the every day household. Now, if they were as common as bibles…) I never accused the scientific community of the us/them mentality, though, I see it often, especially in atheistic circles. (Granted, more often in ‘religious’ groups…but they outnumber atheists by a bunch.) In any organization based in placing your belief in something you will have your extremist/jerks delighting in simply putting or shutting down anyone with an opposing view…It doesn’t make any one view more or less right, just that individual into a schmuck. (it’s a scientific term..I’m sure >.>;)
Your average cosmologist probably doesn’t have the full conception on how cardiology works, however, when they’re wheeled into the operating room, they place their faith on those studied in that science to ensure their heart keeps beating!~^_^~ (And even use methods that don’t have 100% survival rates..which would make them theoretically accurate in most situations …but not fully accurate in the reality observed. ~^_^~)
I don’t think the supernatural/deified beings are disproven per se in this production. So many questions are left behind in it’s wake, so much room for more. (because THAT’s what more means!) I hope that’s exactly what we get…and hopefully more watching.
Sean, you were great. Thanks for the live updates.
Poor Stephen Hawking. Would somebody please tell him that he is over 2000 years behind the times? He thinks that the universe could have created itself, which in itself is an illogical statement. He says that God couldn’t have created the universe, because the pre-existent universe was a black hole, in which time does not exist. Problem is, theologians have known for thousands of years that God exists outside of space and time. God Himself says “I Am the Alpha and Omega, The Beginning and The End.” Hawking only manages to cling to his belief by imagining a puny caricature of a tiny little god that Hawking himself created. What a disappointment. I had hoped a scientist of his stature could come up with something better than mere bubble-gum science. This video gets a big, hairy, cosmic two thumbs down.
So the big bang created the universe in 0 days
If Cherie thinks the human body is an incredible design created by an intelligent God, apparently she hasn’t studied the myriad ways it is unnecessarily kludge-filled and defect-prone.
And since she’s then repeating Kenny’s “Hawking has no hope/purpose” nonsense, I’ll reiterate my response to that:
I feel sorry for Cherie, because she thinks life isn’t worthwhile without false hope, and she’s baffled by the millions of people who are happy without it. Including Hawking, whose life has a massive amount more purpose than most people.
John wrote, “God Himself says ‘I Am the Alpha and Omega, The Beginning and The End.’ ”
To be precise, old human writings claim that one version of the god concept said that.
I like that Mr. Hawkins views on the creation of the Universe was televised and everyone has the ability to debate the existance of a god or not. I am a man of science and I can’t say Mr. Hawkins is completely right about everything but its still better than blind faith.
@Sarah
Yes, theories are written down by the hand of men and women, and so is the Bible and everything else. The big difference is this: Scientists don’t care for dogma, tradition or authority. Einstein was right about some things and wrong about other things and scientists today have no problem accepting the things he was right about and rejecting the things he was wrong about.
You are right that the average person cannot really go about and rederive all theoretical results and repeat all experiments to demonstrate effects. But the thing is that you don’t have to trust a single authoritative figure. If you believe that quantum mechanics is true, you are putting your trust in literally every single physicist on this planet. Throught the process of peer review, you have thousands of people checking each others’ works . You simply don’t get this scrutiny with religion.
There are so many questions yet to be answered, Stephen Hawking.’s perspective is scientifically disappointing. Explaining entangled photons is just one baffling minor question that comes to mind.
To me the ancient Greeks had it right “In God we live and move and have our being.”* It’s kind of like a fish at the bottom of the ocean searching to find the ocean – with it’s limited perspective it will never find it, while the entire time it was swimming in it.
* St Paul borrowed the idea.
Hawking is 2000 years behind the times? I forgot that we still have slavery, kill people for being gay, committing adultery and for having sex before marriage. I can’t believe women actually hold jobs these days considering God himself made them inferior to men. You get all of your “Evidence” for your belief from a book written 2000 years ago that has absolutely no evidence to back it up except for eye witness accounts which is also the best evidence for bigfoot, the lochness monster and whatever other imaginary creature out there. Science is the quest for truth and knowledge and everything that is accepted in the scientific community is backed up by scientific evidence not some supernatural fairy tails.
Shara,
I think you are missing a very important point. Scientists can show you (and teach you) how they come to their conclusions. They are rarely included in shows like this because the vast majority of the viewing audience cannot understand the mathematics involved. Still, there is no need to just “take it on faith”. There is nothing stopping you from continuing your education, and knowing what they know, learning what they have learned, and doing the work yourself. No faith is required.
Theologians cannot “show their work”, and therefore demand that you “take it on faith.”
I think the big problem is that those who believe in the “god” of science leave no room for religious faith while those who worship the set of rules called religion (not as a relationship or personal faith) assume that belief in science is of the devil.
Why is it harder to believe that God could have created the earth and built into it the natural laws that guide its function? Travis talked about evolution explaining the origin of man, but can Travis tell us that man indeed is a random product of a primordial soup? How was RNA or DNA made? How did random chance create such a finely tuned machine as the cell?
Where does Travis get his own evidence from? For example can someone explain to me why science created man from primordial soup billions of years ago but has had serious issues creating just about anything else? Where are the transitional organisms the earth is still creating or did it just stop at us?
Why was the earth chosen?
@paul
So basically wut ur sayin is that we shouldbt search 4 the truth that humans throughout time have questiones
Sean,
You NEED your own show! If you can’t get one on TV, then consider being a co-host on my show American Heathen®. It doesn’t pay anything (I don’t even make any money for it) but it is once a week for three hours on internet radio. No holds barred, let it rip! 🙂
Excellent job on your part!
RJ Evans
ShockNetRadio.com
TheAmericanHeathen.com
AmericanHeathen.net
@david
Theology doesnt answer any of the questions u proposed
Hawking’s assertions are based on reasonable, if amazingly complex, mathematics. It is absolutely necessary to have a fundamental understanding of quantum physics and general relativity to comprehend the logic of his position. To those of us who have this understanding, his assertion is logical, reasonable, and makes good sense.
Now for the bad news; this is the United States. We produce lawyers and pharmacists, not physicists and mathematicians. The vast majority of our citizens, including those with degrees, have no understanding at all of wave mechanics. It simply cannot be broken down into lay terms for the masses. Therefore, only a tiny population has the knowledge to truly see Hawking’s position.
“God did it,” on the other hand, requires no knowledge whatsoever. It’s much easier than learning higher mathematics. That’s why it’s so widely-accepted…it’s just easier…
Show me somebody who understands exactly what the shape of an electron orbital represents, and I’ll show you somebody who can understand Hawking’s reasoning. Otherwise, give them a nice, simple, easy-to-understand sound bite.
David,
The answers to your questions do exist. The fact that you are even asking them shows you have no clue. But in order to get fully accurate answers, you should ask a biologist, read a book written by one, or better yet, go to school. You may be surprised at how much there is for you to learn.
If you want evidence go to http://talkorigins.org/ everything on the site is backed up by peer reviewed scientific journals and it will most likely answer your questions.
I fear Dr. Hawking, although he is apparently brilliant, is unfortunately misled or misinformed. By that, I mean that Dr. Hawking hasn’t taken the question beyond the “black hole”. Okay, time doesn’t exist in the “black hole”. Why is that? And, how did we get the “black hole” and the “laws of nature” to begin with? These haven’t been addressed.
I’m certainly not an intellectual; but I embrace the simplicity that God IS the everything, and the nothing! Dr. Hawking hasn’t grasped the concept beyond energy, space, time.
Dr. Hawking, there is time to take it further. Don’t you believe there is a reason for your existence? If not, I’m praying for wisdom for you. You have intellect but lack that wisdom!
Lagerbaer -> Having or not no ‘singular authority’ isn’t 100% accurate in either religion or science. How many religions are there with conflicts of thought, and how many without a central figurehead? (Buddhism, pagantastic faiths, some varieties of Christianity, Hindu all come to mind..I think you have specifically Catholicism in mind…it’s not the end all be all faith, nor was it ever the sole faith of the world…pretty cool idea to conquer a good chunk of it, though!) Likewise, with science, there ARE ‘central authorities’ such as in certain countries that limit and even exclude some branches of science, reports. As well, even in universities, labs, hospitals, etc, there are persons ‘of authority’ who can, and will, exclude and edit information. Neither is perfect, just one has has a heck of a lot more time to repress the other and make even more glaring (read ‘stupid’) mistakes.
Rob – One word answer. Money.
Believe me, I, for one, would absolutely adore to expand my education and study the sciences… But let’s face facts, such education comes at a cost, and the majority of this planet is in the ‘poor’ range. If the majority of finances were not in the hands of a small percentage of the population, or scientists/doctors/etc were willing to share their knowledge for nothing, (Obviously to the right people ~^_^~) ,maybe the ignorant masses wouldn’t be so ignorant, nor logical, simple and smart solutions to avoid global disaster so difficult to pass through the higher offices of the world’s countries….
@Cherie #22. I could think of something that you’d think is more incredible than the human body… God. So, by your logic, you must also think that someone as incredible as God couldn’t possibly have just come out of nothing. If you call on God, then what created God? The argument of “God is timeless” is cop-out (unless you’ve got mathematical evidence for it that is as valid as Hawkins’ evidence for his theory).
This argument is moot though, whether there is a being outside the universe that created the universe has no bearing on the magic that most religious people in the world believe in and the arbitrary rules that they follow.
I now understand why Discovery had the ‘courage’ to air this program – because they were going to give ‘equal time’ in the discussion to those who indulge in religious apologetics! There should be opportunities given for scientists to offer different opinions about TV programs on ‘science’ shows concerning the bible, UFOs, etc. But no … only when we take on the the christian majority is it necessary to give ‘equal time’ for them to offer their handwaving ‘explanations’. In science, it was noted right away on the ‘discussion’ that in science there is no ‘final answer’ – there is no dogma or gospel according to Stephen Hawking. There are no arguments by authority! Science operates very differently from believer apologists, who continue to try to find gaps in the science so their mythical deity actually has a role to play.
@ Rob, no need to get smug. I’m sorry but science still has no answers to those questions. The typical arrogant “get a biology textbook” is what i get from proponents of evolution. If science had the answer to those questions we wont be watching a documentary by Stephen Hawking today, it would be common knowledge just the same way we don’t need documentaries to explain gravity . . . its in every physics textbook.
Travis, i’ve been to talkorigins before, its like me telling you to grab a bible to understand ID. Much of what is on that site is bogus, if they were scientific FACT, there would be no need for the site. Is there a site quarelling over the issue of energy transfer?