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.
@122 – I take it from the comments that Sean doesn’t like Michio Kaku. Anyone know the reason why? I only know him from Physics of the Impossible and SciFi Science.
If I had to guess, it might have something to do with his wishy-washy stance on religion in science. Or perhaps it is that he (Kaku) does not have a problem working the extreme fringes of his science in mediums like Coast to Coast AM.
Of course, I have no idea. It might just be that if they were going to keep going back to him, then he should have been on the panel.
Here’s a picture of, I believe, Michio Kaku relaxing while listening to the musician beside him after he was done with his TV appearance.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp8d6deCe21qk2xnco1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1312868231&Signature=DVuYfARd%2FOtJIulG2ppaMlWoJHI%3D
“The Big Bang can just … be.”
This makes no sense. What caused it? A pre-existing universe? Is there any evidence for it?
Did the big bang come from “nothing”? Doesn’t make sense.
” Hawking believes that quantum gravity smooths the singularity and explains how there was no pre-existing time.”
Yes, and I believe in God. Both Hawking and I have no evidence for our beliefs.
“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). ”
Well, Sean, why don’t you try reading some works from a few notable theologians or other thinkers for how something like this might make sense. Just because it’s not a scientific statement, doesn’t mean it can’t make sense.
“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.”
Face it, if multiverse ideas were true, then that would drastically reduce the need for a creator of our universe. If our universe is the only one, then you still have to explain how it managed to come into being. You can’t create a universe from nothing, because if there’s nothing, there are no laws of physics, no symmetry principles, no concept of energy and, hence, the argument using the idea that the total energy content of the universe is zero is not a valid argument. Laws of physics mean absolutely nothing if nothing exists in which those laws work. Does Hawking suppose the universe existed in that infinitesimally small state (governed by quantum gravity) for an eternity before something in quantum gravity triggered inflation and the Big Bang? If not, then SOMETHING had to have created that initial state. Of course, if a God explanation is not desired, then the only solution is a multiverse, for which we cannot obtain any evidence for. Therefore, my belief in God holds as much water as Hawking’s beliefs about the magical M theory and the multiverse.
BTW, that photo was clearly a joke. 🙂
So, Phil, are you using the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Might I direct you to a little video for your viewing pleasure about the KCA? It might help with some of your difficulties. Or not.
http://youtu.be/baZUCc5m8sE
Also, it wasn’t Hawking who brought up the multiverse. That was Kaku in the panel. Please at least direct your rebuttal to the correct argument.
@amphiox (#94): “Science” has done no such thing … at least not all the way back to the Big Bang. This is Hawking’s claim, and before it can be looked upon as science proper, other experts must examine the evidence and reach a consensus as to whether it supports the theory or not. To my knowledge, this hasn’t happened yet.
Also, it is worth remembering that “science” does not exist as a separate entity from “scientists,” who are, of course, fallible.
If I had watched this without knowing anything about cosmology, I would conclude that cosmologists are morons. Hawking and others said foolish things and made foolish arguments. Medieval theologians probably made more sense.
Some viewers may think that there is mathematics to justify what was said. They have been tricked. There is no math to back up what Hawking said.
H-Bomb: “Also, it wasn’t Hawking who brought up the multiverse. That was Kaku in the panel.”
Yes, I know Hawking didn’t bring up the multiverse. That’s not important. I was trying to explain something and the multiverse idea was in my explanation. Just because I also mentioned Hawking doesn’t mean I was associating him with the multiverse idea.
“Please at least direct your rebuttal to the correct argument.”
I wasn’t forming a rebuttal to a specific person. Go back and read what I wrote, you’ll see.
#129, H-Bomb:
I will watch the video you linked to tomorrow. It’s late. What I was saying was that if there was no “parent universe” from which ours came to be (i.e. no “multiverse”), then either the “singularity-resolved” state (as described from the correct theory of quantum gravity) from which inflation and the big bang occurred for our universe had existed for an infinite amount of time (whatever that means within the context of the correct theory of quantum gravity), OR it didn’t. If it didn’t, then that “singularity-resolved” state had to be created somehow. My opinion is that it had to have been created by something “supernatural” because we are assuming that there is no “parent universe” producing this state from which our universe was born and assuming that the singularity-resolved “seed” didn’t exist for an infinite amount of “time” prior to the Big Bang. Why? Because you can’t get a universe from nothing. Sure, you can get virtual particles from empty spacetime, but you cannot get a universe from pure nothing. So if you want to avoid this “supernatural” option, you need either a “parent universe” or that second option I mentioned. The former, to my knowledge (which, I will humbly admit, is not very large even though I have some advanced physics training under my belt), is not testable (like the God hypothesis) and has no scientific evidence in its favor (also like the God hypothesis). The latter has to be a prediction from the valid quantum theory of gravity. Thus, the God hypothesis is as much a valid position as a natural one, for which there is no evidence.
There is one big flow(I think )in Hawking’s theory. When he said that sub-Atomic particles appear to come out of nowhere and then disappear only to have reappeare somewhere else. In his demonstration there was time, he claimed that in the beginning there was no time so how could anything happen at all if theres no time yet? Unless sub-atomic particles move in and out of time. just saying.
H-Bomb:
“It might help with some of your difficulties. Or not.”
🙂 Oh you are so witty.
“@David, that’s because your physics textbook is probably a high school or …”
I have read the advanced textbooks and taken the classes. The arguments given by Hawking (and Sean) are crap. There is nothing scientific about them. Like no. 75, scientists and astrophysicists should be embarrassed about being represented by charlatans.
Reply! Did God create the Universe? Please read!
Dear David Gregory; There is no greater message then what I have received from the Lord God of All. God literally spoke to me “yes” God has a Voice.
On 4-21-09 God the Father Through Christ His Son By the Power Of the Holy Spirit. Consumed and Spoke to me. P.S. I was In heaven Just at the Sound of his Voice. The Heavens and the Earth were removed and Only Gods word remained. I had no Body, No form, Not Eyes, ears, Mouth or Even a breath in me. One minute “I was” and the next minute “I was Not” and all that remained was God. This is what God the Father Through Christ His son by the Power of the Holy spirit said.
“In the beginning there was adam and eve and they fell due to there pride. There is good and bad in all the world and good can be brought forth from the bad. Going on to say we are in the 5th chapter of a 12 part chapter in the history of mankind. Things are going to get worse before they get better. There is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and all other churches are “Offsprings”. I have gone ahead and sent the Holy Spirit throughout the Whole world.” Word Of God” After God spoke to me, He asked me to Go ahead and stand and open my eyes. The Lord God filled me with the Holy Spirit.
I am proclaiming the truth in which God Chose to reveal. God may have revealed it to me; yet it effects the whole world. That is why I am revealing it to you. For the Love Of God and Man.
See the Signs the Holy Spirit has been revealing since the Apparition!
P.s. It doesn’t take a mathematical/Scientific genius to figure it out.
1.The cross of Christ remained in Haiti earthquake 2.New zealand christ church shook twice 3. Hurricane Igor flooded Corpus Christi=Body Of Christ 4. Lightning struck 6 story tall statue of Christ in ohio. 5. 7 missing hikers found in Zion next to Virgin! 6. Halo Cloud Over russia that appeared is identical to the one that appears in a 1486 painting called the “annunciation”. 8. Chille earthquake in conccepion occured on the anniversary day the Immaculate conception appeared to st. bernadette in 1858. 9. Japan Earthquake-Tsunami-Nuclear Meltdown/Japan= “Land of the Rising Sun” Earthquake=Mankinds failure to believe in and Love the One true God and Christ his Son.Tsunami=Baptism Nuclear Meltdown=The Fire that is going to sweep the earth when it is all said and Done. 10. Iceland Volcano-5-21-11 Judgement day – false prophecy – False Doctrine-False Teachings= Provoking Gods Wrath 11. 5-22-11 Hurricane-Joplin Missouri= Bible Belt=St.Johns Hospital=St. Mary’s Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church “The Cross Remained” Repent Repent,Repent.
It will all continue till all the world goes to believe. God never Lied. Neither Am I.
God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are my witnesses.
Where nothing is hidden!
Phil says: “This makes no sense. What caused it? A pre-existing universe? Is there any evidence for it? Did the big bang come from “nothing”? Doesn’t make sense.”
Okay….I think Hawking is saying since the universe requires energy and space to exist and the total energy of the universe is actually zero when the negative energy (gravity?) is calculated in, then the effect of space (and therefore time) is the apparent seperation of this positive and negative energy. Its this ‘flux’, for lack of a better (or more educated) term, the universe spontaneously expanded resulting in space-time. The argument for causation is therefore negated if something can indeed come from ‘nothing’.
The scientific method has proven to be the most consistent and reliable way to obtain knowledge. For centuries religion has gone to great lenghts to prevent scientific inquiry for this very reason. If religion claims to have the ‘truth’ then science is within it’s bounds to test the validity of those claims.
Dr. Carroll. I was very impressed by your showing tonight. I could tell that you wanted to almost laugh at some of the questions….and responses.
Is this your only blog, or is there any other way for us truth seeking athiests to read your works.
Thank you. Scott
“Dr. Carroll. I was very impressed by your showing tonight. I could tell that you wanted to almost laugh at some of the questions….and responses.”
Why? Because you think Dr. Carroll is an arrogant atheist like you are? Maybe your arrogance influenced your mind so that you merely imagined seeing Dr. Carroll want to almost laugh.
@138, Tanya:
“Its this ‘flux’, for lack of a better (or more educated) term, the universe spontaneously expanded resulting in space-time.”
Do you know if there were any research papers explaining this idea? It’s just unclear. I mean, what exactly “expanded” to result in space-time. It’s space that’s expanding, so you need spacetime to exist before you have an expansion.
“… then the effect of space (and therefore time) is the apparent seperation of this positive and negative energy.”
What kind of separation? Physical separation? Are his arguments based on research that fleshes out these ideas more exactly. Just curious about this.
“The scientific method has proven to be the most consistent and reliable way to obtain knowledge.”
Does the scientific method have anything to say about whether God exists?
“For centuries religion has gone to great lenghts to prevent scientific inquiry for this very reason.”
That’s a very common, but incorrect belief. For example, Christianity and Islam have recognized the value in scientific inquiry, and both religions made great contributions to science over the centuries. Of course, both religions made their bad mistakes, but your statement is false despite being commonly held.
For example, “The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts” by Edward Grant.
I personally neither believe nor discount the existence of some god/goddess. (the non-intervening variety). Nor do I believe (don’t mean to sound condescending) that the majority of humans (many which are in some way or another part of a religious organization, or blissfully ignorant), would even be able to fathom what that god is? Is it an entity? A non-local consciousness? A deity that promises hell if we are not baptized or “saved”?
The only problem that exists with god being a consciousness is that it is impossible to be analyzed, sampled, observed, etc. Which leaves it a complete mystery. (It’s better this way I think).
I look at it this way: I think as the cosmos as being a god, the sun as the seeds, the earth as the goddess and the moon as a midwife. Remember that if it wasn’t for the moon life on this planet would have been completely different (no tidal pools). It’s my way of looking at things with respect to what i can see, touch and feel.
As far as Curiosity is concerned… bringeth MOAR!!! Cheers
@Tanya, #138,
For an excellent review of the book I mentioned (“The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts”) as well as a discussion of the contributions to science during that time, have a look at:
http://cburrell.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/grant-the-foundations-of-modern-science-in-the-middle-ages/
You will not be disappointed. The reviewer also has a PhD in particle physics.
Medieval arguments for God are about as reasonable as medieval notions about physics, which is to say that they are completely useless. There’s no reason to take them seriously. That’s an ad hominem argument, to be sure, but it’s a sufficient reply to an argument from authority. Aquinas and Aristotle were ignorant, arrogant and wrong.
If your notions about the universe are such that they cannot explain the workings of everyday devices, like the flash memory on your cell phone, you really should not be weighing in on cosmological questions. Whenever you get the impression that better-educated people are laughing at you, one thing that you really ought to consider is the possibility that they know something you don’t.
Phil @138, if you’d like a technical explanation for the expansion of spacetime, I believe you’ll find it in Hawking and Ellis’ The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime. Less technically, you could try Hawking’s A Brief History of Time and A Briefer History of Time. My explanation: Spacetime itself is what expanded. There was no space or time ‘before’ the universe; there was no ‘before’, nor anything to expand into.
@andyo (#89): You’ve missed the point entirely.
As I wrote to amphiox, Hawking’s hypothesis about the origin of the universe is just that, at this point: an idea, something he chooses to believe. Cosmologists can come up with a thousand and one ways of explaining how the universe might have come into existence without the need for God, but until these hypotheses are vetted by the scientific method (which requires experiments and evidence), they are not “science” in the same sense that Newton’s theory of gravitation is, for example. So “science” has not proven anything here – what we have is simply a man with an interesting idea that may or may not be supported by the evidence.
A wise man once told me that IF there is a Supreme Being (God) that created the universe, then Men’s egos are so arrogant to believe that they can comprehend and explain such a Supreme Being. For me I have always been a fan of Mr. Hawkins; however, it’s extremely sad that Mr. Hawkins doesn’t believe in some kind of higher intelligence, that there isn’t a purpose to our existence. Can Science prove “Faith”? It’s a Human thought, and feeling…. But why? Has the Scientific world become so egotistic that they believe they have the answer for everything? Then answer this; Who created the “Laws of Nature” or even the components that created the “Big Bang”?
Anon #89, you’re right that these are hypotheses, but they’re not the same as just believing in “god did it”. These are mathematically sound (as far as I’ve read from cosmologists) and also falsifiable in principle, if not in practice because of technological barriers.
Also, this is the god of the gaps you’re proposing. And assuming you believe in this god, well, what else does she do besides setting off the big bang? If nothing else after that, then what’s the difference with not believing in her?
The proponents of science have “shot themselves in the foot” by broadcasting abstract views which are largely incomprehensible to the vast majority of viewers. The net result may be that the arguments will be discussed by a few and ignored or distorted by most. No doubt the creationists will be delighted that this programme will have done little to dislodge widespread faith in their position. Indeed it may even be strengthened by the ridicule that will no doubt follow. The blind faith that creationists exhibit, even without any credible evidence, is a stronghold unlikely to be shaken by the esoteric thoughts of scientists, no matter how celebrated they may be.
Jessie, you understand you’re the nth person here saying the same thing? There are responses to posts like yours above so I won’t bother with the “it’s extremely sad” condescending BS.
Science can explain why the brain does belief and faith. Is there any reason why it shouldn’t?
Because we didn’t evolve to not be gullible. Evolution shapes organs (the brain) just well enough to survive and procreate, not perfect. We can know better now, and what is sad is that people willingly deny this benefit by choosing to still believe in superstitions.
Please cite ANY scientist like Hawking who has said that they have the answer for everything. And is the religious world so egotistic that they believe the creator of billions of galaxies which have billions of stars and planets to care about each person among billions of a species that hasn’t even been on earth for 99.995% of the time it’s had life?