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.
You must have tiny hands yourself, which you hate. You probably wish your hands were bigger. Which is probably why you’re so obsessed about Aquinas, as well as other Christian thinkers, having tiny hands. Do you have evidence that their hands were tiny?
That’s the last minute I waste on you.
Phil, Owlmirror is making perfectly valid points, whereas you’re arguing from authority, playing the martyr, and pooh-pooing cogent and apt arguments. *All* Eulenspiegel is doing is pointing out that you need to do something other than cry “read theologians!”.
I’m not hostile to you. I’m hostile to nonsense. I’m sorry you take nonsense so personally.
And vice-versa.
If you can’t figure out how to write “Gödel”, write “Goedel”.
You haven’t heard of Gödel’s ontological proof via modal logic? He never published it, probably because he realized that it was as silly as any other “proof” of God.
I think you’re probably a liar too.
You too.
Yes. Size is relative. In relation to the size of the universe, humans are tiny, and so are their hands. Theologians are humans, so their hands are tiny in relation to the universe as well.
QED.
See? That’s logic that is both valid and sound.
Feel free to ignore me while I point out the utter stupidity of theolology.
“If you can’t figure out how to write “Gödel”, write “Goedel”.”
Oh right! I forgot. Same thing with “Schrodinger” and “Schroedinger”. Thanks, now please chill out and stop calling people morons!
Old joke: why do radio announcers have small hands?
Wee paws for station identification.
Owl, just keep spewing arrogant semi-knowledge and you will convert more and more people away from your position. The existence of extra dimensions of time as well as space is in fact permitted by the mathematics and many qualified theoreticians have theorized it.
If your position is so certain, you do not need the arrogance.
It’s clear that we are embedded in a reality deeper than the one we experience through the normal senses. Physics says this. And people have had experiences during non-ordinary states of consciousness, NOSC, which for them has clearly shown that this reality is more real than the present one we are sensing now.
These are distinguished from dreams (except perhaps “great” dreams and telepathic dreams), hallucinations, drunk states and the like, which have a less real feel to them and seem to be just distortions, although some dreams are very clear.
If the mind has veridical perceptions during NOSC, or it is absolutely clear to the experiencer that their experience is more real than any of the other states (better maybe than even “great dreams”) and also that there seems to be no way these experiences could be those laid down in memory (like remembering where your car keys are!), then I think one can tentatively conclude that the mind is accessing some kind of higher reality.
So the mind becomes a window to another reality.
So one test of the “realness”, in the physical sense and perhaps as described by some future physics, of a higher reality, especially if veridical perceptions occur, is this more real feel to it. Dangerous idea?
In physics when some kind of “information” is gained, say a during particle collision where effectively information is exchanged, there has to be a commonality between the two interacting objects. The less commonality, the less interactions. So neutrinos (no charge and almost no mass) pass through the Earth without interactions (barely).
But if the mind is roaming through this “landscape” in this higher reality and gaining real information (I know of a physicist who trying to model reality but including “information spaces” tied to all the other extra-dimensional stuff precisely because he takes these experiences seriously) and there is no way these are experiences laid down in the brain’s memory (and bringing this information back) then there must be a commonality between this mind and the landscape.
It is like a mind roaming through some “great mind”. Just some ideas.
I guess Stephen Hawkings has come full circle. With the whole univers staring him straight in the face,, he comes down to ‘Nothing’…
Nothing,, is the answer.
I guess if thats the case his anology is is or means ‘Nothing’.
I uded to think he was so far intellectually above most of us, but, now I see him as lost as lost can be…
I’m sure his ‘folowers and belivers’ look at him as the Guru or even Godlike,, but that anology left me honestly laughing,, outloud.
Here is a man that has spent all of his life studying, observing and aquiring knowledge.
A man that has all day and night to ‘think’, to ‘analyze’, to understand,, and what in the world does he finally come up with “NOTHING” !!!! and Absolutelly “NOTHING”
And NOTHING more….
And his followers praise him for it…. For NOTHING …
There is a very appropriatte phrase written for this, it fits SO WELL..
“Leviticus 8 16 thru 17”
E.F.Barrett
Meh. Wouldn’t watch it even if it was running here since I have no interest in the subject. I AM interested in whether or not serious physicists are embarassed to appear with Michio Kaku though?
If there is such a thing as “emergent” or “imaginary” time, that certainly constrains the possible Gods. Still, I don’t see how the concept makes sense, nothing happens without time,.. right?
@ 210 realta fuar,
Why would serious physicists feel embarrassed to appear with Michio Kaku? He’s the father of string field theory, you know.
I’m baffled as to what you think my position is, given that you don’t seem to be addressing anything I actually wrote.
Case in point: Where, exactly, did I suggest that there was anything wrong with that?
Because only religious people are allowed to be arrogant?
I watched the episode of “Curiousity” with great interest, and, having watched episodes of “Through the Wormhole” previously, I was wondering if Professor Hawking was going to duck the question as is done in the programme hosted by Morgan Freeman: whew! What a relief! Hawking takes what he knows and runs with it, no apologies! Way to go!
How do we know about the Big Bang? By extrapolating backward from the expanding universe until we can extrapolate no more: a relatively simple model based on direct observation (and one which has to have been modified somewhat when we inferred the acceleration of the expansion over time: since acceleration never occurs without a force behind it, we were able to infer the existence of dark matter/negative energy…again, based upon direct observation).
It’s easy to get wrong the hill/hole analogy: it’s of the simultaneous existence of positive energy/matter and its negative twin. What is there before it? Neither positive nor negative: zero, zip, nada.
So, although what existed before the big bang is like a black hole in that time stops beyond it, so that there is no “beyond it,” it’s a much deeper hole than the extant black holes, because it simply isn’t possible for anything to have existed before it. Not an easy concept for us to grasp…but one inferred from direct observation. No faith needed: just the ability to derive one’s concepts from observation. Such is science.
Now if Hawking can demolish the “first cause” shibboleth without resorting to the maths which undergird the concept (which he does, brilliantly, in his books and also in “Curiosity,”) how much easier it is do knock down the “intelligent design” totem! Look, if humans are purpose-built by a Creator, why do we have an appendix, which is worse than useless in humans…but vital to vegetarian simians, such as gorillas? (Hint: it’s an evolutionary remnant of a simian rumen). Why do we breathe through our mouths as well as our noses, when two separate sets of plumbing, one respiratory and one digestive, would preclude the risk of choking to death? What intelligent designer would purposely build in a death trap when it could so easily be avoided?
See what a clean blade Occam’s Razor really is? Use it to shave unnecessary concepts off every day, your mind will thank you!
So, where does that leave us? Well, on the one hand, the argument that it’s an economic question has some merit: while the internet has knocked down the knowledge barrier somewhat, it still takes some time to chip away at one’s ignorance via the internet…and since we spend most of our time trying to earn a living, and the balance in living itself, that doesn’t leave very much time for most of us to expand our knowledge.
That don’t explain the allergic reaction quite a lot of people have to having their dogmas questioned, however: we have actually been taught that faith in our bosses, whether economic or ideological, will be rewarded…and heresy will be punished. Our supposed love of liberty is, in too many cases, a fig-leaf behind which can be found a deep fear and hate of any real liberation: freedom will prove “us” right and “them” wrong…heaven forbid the reverse!
The fig leaf is getting thinner and more tattered as we speak (or write): soon enough, the lines between those who seek liberation and those who fear and hate it will be clearly drawn. Dialogues such as this, I hope, help to clarify that distinction.
And he took all the fat that was upon the inwards, and the caul above the liver, and the two kidneys, and their fat, and Moses burned it upon the altar. But the bullock, and his hide, his flesh, and his dung, he burnt with fire without the camp; as the LORD commanded Moses.
?
Some religious people aren’t just arrogant; they’re completely insane.
Anon’s comments seem to me to make the most sense. All of us, including scientists have their own perspectives which influence their work and/or theories. You can not say scientists follow only the facts. They often draw conclusions that cannot be drawn based on the physical evidence. This seems to be the case with Dr. Hawking. I disliked the air of proven evidence given to his theory, although I realize the show was not very long and there were constraints.
I would have preferred to have an all scientific panel, who could have shown the problems with his theory. I do not believe a non-physical God can ever be proven or dis-proven,based on physical principles.
I do believe that there is enough circumstantial evidence in philosophy, near-death experiences, inexplicable healings and phenomena and the hard sciences to incline one towards belief in God.
I respect those who do not share my belief although I confess I have a hard time understanding how they get along believing they have no definitive purpose for existing and no existence after this life .
There’s something vaguely narcissistic in thinking that you do have a definitive purpose in life, that comes from an invisible person with magical superpowers. Presumably, the “definitive” purpose of most of humanity has been to live brief lives filled with pain and die in agonizing illness, because God thinks that suffering and death is a good thing.
On the other hand, if there is an existence after this life, why don’t those who believe in it just kill themselves? This existence is temporary; the supposed afterlife is supposedly eternal. So why not just get the temporary stuff over and done with? Why dither around living, when you could be afterliving?
Owlmirror,
Can you tell me how to write “Goedel” with the character corresponding to “oe”? I’m trying to search for how to do it, but no luck. Are you using an html command?
@Phil: I use HTML entities; typing “Gödel” in the comment box will result in “Gödel” being displayed.
[“ouml” stands for “o-umlaut”, of course]
More HTML entities here:
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_entities.asp
You can also Google for “HTML entities” to find more lists of more obscure characters, most of which use only numbers to encode them, and don’t have an obvious name. Not all of these will display; you also need a Unicode font that supports them.
You could also use the character map tool, or copy and paste.
Thank you all for the entertaining discourse. I love science! By it humans discover how incredibly orderly this chaotic universe is. (Or should I say how chaotic this orderly universe is)… Anyways, by science the “truth” of matters can be found out and discovered.
But wait…truth cannot be discovered via science because “truth” exists in the philosophical realm. Science helps us discover “facts” that all of us can agree on. I guess that’s why all scientists don’t all agree when it comes to understanding the origin of the universe. Because Science doesn’t “speak,” “know,” or “tell” us anything. Scientists speak, know, or tell us things. And once scientists begin to tell us the “truth” about something they exit the scientific realm and enter the philosophical (or theological) realm. That’s why in the show Mr. Hawking (or the announcer) used the terms “we know” or “science knows” but in the end of the show Mr. Hawking said “I BELIEVE.” Because he was intellectually honest and realized he exited the scientific realm and entered the philosophical realm when he gave his personal opinion and not a scientific fact.
Not sure if this was posted yet, but when you posited the question “If God didn’t exist, would the universe be any different?” (or something like that), you threw a big ‘ol hand grenade that was sorely needed in that show — it hit right to the heart of the matter. I loved the look on Haught’s face. Priceless.
You’re right – not enough time to talk about this content in a heavily edited 1/2 hour. You did your best to cut to the chase on the topic with the time you had and your answers were spot on.
@221, Chad,
Here’s the answer to your question. If God didn’t exist, yes the universe would be different. Jesus would not have existed and, therefore, Christianity would never had existed. 🙂 Hope that helps.
Wait just a damn minute! The inter-universal clock runs forever. Always has; always will.
note;
The inter-universal clock derives its time from the motion of infinite universes.
And one more thing. Unlike the red-shift of the car racing down the road in a straight line,
the light from an expanding universe is old and could be bent by cosmic gravity or some such thing resulting in bent laws of physics, not to mention color distortion.
“OWLMirror”
Your looking in the wrong bible version;;
Try The King James Version “Ecclesiastes 8: 16”
16 When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to see the business that is done on earth, even though one sees no sleep day or night,
then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it
Not all things come in the form of ‘Logic’.
We see and understand, know and feel logically and intuitionally.
We think and feel.
Our brains are even constructed that way.
Half logic, half intuitional.
The most closed minded people I have ever met are scientists.
They see only ‘logic’.
They ‘cant’ think out of that box.
They math before beauty.
E.F.Barrett
I looked at the bible verses that you referenced. If they were wrong, you got them wrong. Own your mistake. Take responsibility.
That’s something that a crazy person would say.
What does that even mean?
Look. You obviously have a huge problem writing words and sentences in the English language. Maybe the problem you have with scientists is also your problem, in understanding what they are saying.
Or to put it in other words: You make no sense. Science tries to make sense. Maybe what you think is sense is really nonsense, and what science does really does make sense.
Think about it. It may hurt your head, but try.