Stephen Hawking says Universe not created by God

[nasher168]

'Twas for some reason on the front page of the Times this morning but since you need to pay for their website now, here's the Guardian's take on it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

God did not create the universe, the man who is arguably Britain's most famous living scientist says in a forthcoming book.

In the new work, The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity.

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".

The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

I saw a tweet from Jim Al-Khalili this morning saying that M-Theory requires faith too, so he's obviously not buying Hawking's argument. Personally I'm in no position to argue either way, but it will be interesting to see the arguments for and against from those who actually know what they're talking about.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, he said: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason, for then we should know the mind of God."

Epic context fail.

Looking forward to the new book, presumably with an update on the no-boundary proposal. However, I'm not aware of any significant leaps made with the theory following WMAP, and this book seems a bit too soon for Planck.

It's piqued my curiosity. As for the article, it's a bit sensationalist. Scientific theories don't falsify gods necessarily, even if they do provide god-free explanations.

 

[mirandansa]

Hawking had previously appeared to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. Writing in his bestseller A Brief History Of Time in 1988, he said: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason, for then we should know the mind of God."

As i have been suggesting, people need to be more mindful of the referential scope of the word "God", beyond the conventional sense of "Creator". This reporter obviously misconstrued Hawking's semantics. And it's a preconception whose prevalence i keep detecting among many explicit atheists.

Also: as much as i share the concern over the creationist movement -- it's a disgrace to human intelligence --, i don't think the concern justifies this statement that "Universe was not created by God". It's a both epistemological and semantic overdo.

 

[doodpersoon]

Maybe it's better to read the book first before everybody starts spewing there 'knowledge' on the subject.

This seems like a publicity stunt for the release, and it worked cause I'm buying the book as soon as it hits the shelves.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Maybe it's better to read the book first before everybody starts spewing there 'knowledge' on the subject.

Firstly I haven't seen anyone here attempt to do that, so your comment seems a little rash.

Secondly those who're familiar with the last two decades of Hawking's work know it's going to be about M-theory. We know because books don't surprise anyone with new research. The research has already been published and the purpose of Hawking's book will be to present it to the lay scientist with, I'm sure, a few of his own opinions about the more metaphysical implications (such as the one in the article.)

Physicists are generally qualified to comment on his theory already, provided they understand it, and as Jim Al-khalili rightly stated M-theory is not bulletproof.

String theories generally provide the most godless, first-causeless of all cosmologies, but that doesn't give them any more credence. They must rise to the same observational, evidence-based challenge as any other model, and at this stage all higher-dimensional physics is more or less at the first hurdle.

 

[TheMaw]

I've skimmed through a review of the book and it seems that Hawking and Mlodinow may be giving multiple ideas at the origin of the Big Bang, not just M-Theory, but I'm sure that idea will be at the forefront.

Wasn't Hawking originally against throwing faith into M-Theory. I'm interested in what changed his mind.

 

[Yfelsung]

I'd say M-Theory is a touch more than "not-bullet proof"

We still don't have any viable experiments I know of to prove even basic tenants of string or M theory.

I know if we find the graviton and it vanishes before our eyes that it would lead credence to a theory that the reason gravity is the weakest force is because it affects more than one brane at the same time, but even that isn't very concrete and we still haven't found the graviton.

I trust that M-theory is the best theory we have from a mathematical stand point, but most if it is pretty much "holes in the math" as far as it has ever been explained to me, not a theory based on any empirical data as of yet.

Not saying it's not true, could be, it just bugs me that it's so untestable at the moment.

 

[mirandansa]

String theories generally provide the most godless, first-causeless of all cosmologies

At the same time, it's what has motivated scientists like Bernard Haisch to "reconcile" scientific facts with religious beliefs:



And here's a Christian take on it:



In this video, he is trying to interpret Genesis in light of scientific insights, namely string theories. But only partially so. As for the origin of biological species, this gentleman sadly rejects evolution theory. Overall, he is intellectually dishonest.

 

[mirandansa]

A brief history of Hawking (from supersymmetry to M-theory):

 

[AndromedasWake]

I've skimmed through a review of the book and it seems that Hawking and Mlodinow may be giving multiple ideas at the origin of the Big Bang, not just M-Theory, but I'm sure that idea will be at the forefront.

Wasn't Hawking originally against throwing faith into M-Theory. I'm interested in what changed his mind.

I'm absolutely sure there will be a broad discussion on different cosmologies in the book; it's a staple feature of all good pop-sci, and Hawking is a master of it. I look forward to reading it very much, and it's going to the top of my list once it arrives.

As for his proposal, he has in the last couple of decades made numerous contributions towards p-brane collision models, and interviews about the book suggests it will be the major focus. I like these models a lot, but I can't escape the observation of Al-khalili. I once saw him speak at a colloquium about the history of particle physics. A student asked him for his opinion on string theory, to which he replied, "It's a beautiful mathematical game and we should be cautious about it."

An incomprehensible multiverse with simple (in 11D, not when written down) D-branes unfolding inside it is a beautiful model which gives us deep-time perspective and a physical theory of ontology, but with so much at stake we'd jolly well better find some tangible way of checking it.

By the way Leonard Mlodinow is an amazing author. Anyone looking for something life-changing should read Feynamn's Rainbow -- without a doubt one of the most inspiring books I've ever read.

String theories generally provide the most godless, first-causeless of all cosmologies

At the same time, it's what has motivated scientists like Bernard Haisch to "reconcile" scientific facts with religious beliefs:

It's always been of interest to me to see how cosmology and pantheism can be reconciled, but this was a disappointment. His wiki article states that his proofs are "fine tuning and mystical experiences".

If he was motivated by string theory, I'm surprised he isn't shaken by its enormous potential to eliminate "fine tuning", not least with the growing M-theory multiverse movement. In the video, a multiverse is considered a logical possibility, but written off in the subtext as a wild assumption. In the meantime, it's also logically possible that a great intelligence created the Universe. Sure, I'm willing to grant that, but towards the end (paraphrase) "what would an intelligence with such an infinite potential do? Create a Universe in which all kinds of life-forms could evolve, then let its consciousness enter those life-forms and experience physical reality."

Why? If one is going to postulate an "infinite intelligence beyond space and time" ( :| ) then one should realise that any further discussion is going to be contingent on masses of speculation. Meanwhile, the far less speculative multiverse, derived from a mathematical construct, in which Universes spontaneously appear with a probability of being life-permitting doesn't seem so ridiculous after all.

His use of quotes from various scientists such as Hoyle also irks me, because it has the flavour of an anti-scientific video, even if it's not intended to be one.

I may find the time to read 'The God Theory' one day, but it won't be before I read Hawking's new book.

 

[Jotto999]

Well, on the actual physics I have nothing to say, other than that it looks interesting and I think I'll buy the book. I do find it interesting that Hawking is fairly certain of this theory, certain enough to come out and claim that a god is definitely not the cause of the universe.

I wonder if this will have much effect on theistic belief. The god of the gaps generally sits around the creation of the universe. If that gap were ever filled in, it should be catastrophic to theism.

 

[mirandansa]

Well, on the actual physics I have nothing to say, other than that it looks interesting and I think I'll buy the book. I do find it interesting that Hawking is fairly certain of this theory, certain enough to come out and claim that a god is definitely not the cause of the universe.

I wonder if this will have much effect on theistic belief. The god of the gaps generally sits around the creation of the universe. If that gap were ever filled in, it should be catastrophic to theism.

To the extent that theism can include pantheism and panentheism (which don't require a belief in an agentive "Creator"), i would take it (the first-cause-less Theory of Everything) to be catastrophic more to deism, which rests solely on the belief that the Universe was created by a supreme being who then ceased to interact with it (save perhaps pandeism).

Theism is subject to the distinction between a supernatural creator-deity and a non-supernatural cosmos-divinity. Usually, people don't explicitly talk much about the latter since it concerns direct experience rather than propositional belief (and when they do touch on such experience of an existential significance, they likely use more colloquial expressions like "great!", "awesome!", etc. upon which the underlying cosmic nature of that which is "great" or "awesome" ends up going unnoticed or unexamined). Instead, the former (a supernatural creator-deity) has become the de-facto definition of "God" for most people in the regions where theism has been most and disproportionally represented by monotheists. Accordingly, what most people mean by "atheism" in the West is very often "amonotheism". It's important to note that what may destroy monotheism may not destroy theism itself.

 

[australopithecus]

The Daily Mirror gives a critic a chance to create a strawman reply.

There is an assumption by some scientists that if you find laws to explain things then it does away with the need of a God.

Hawking is a modern atheist. He thinks that suddenly science comes along and says here are the answers and explanations, so therefore we don't need God.

But smart Christians do not think that if you can explain things by laws of science then God does not exist. We believe in the beauty and structure and order of the world. And we think that God sustains all of that.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/09/03/good-heavens-god-did-not-create-the-universe-115875-22533104/#sitelife-commentsWidget-bottom

 

[Jotto999]

Well, on the actual physics I have nothing to say, other than that it looks interesting and I think I'll buy the book. I do find it interesting that Hawking is fairly certain of this theory, certain enough to come out and claim that a god is definitely not the cause of the universe.

I wonder if this will have much effect on theistic belief. The god of the gaps generally sits around the creation of the universe. If that gap were ever filled in, it should be catastrophic to theism.

To the extent that theism can include pantheism and panentheism (which don't require a belief in an agentive "Creator"), i would take it (the first-cause-less Theory of Everything) to be catastrophic more to deism, which rests solely on the belief that the Universe was created by a supreme being who then ceased to interact with it (save perhaps pandeism).

Theism is subject to the distinction between a supernatural creator-deity and a non-supernatural cosmos-divinity. Usually, people don't explicitly talk much about the latter since it concerns direct experience rather than propositional belief (and when they do touch on such experience of an existential significance, they likely use more colloquial expressions like "great!", "awesome!", etc. upon which the underlying cosmic nature of that which is "great" or "awesome" ends up going unnoticed or unexamined). Instead, the former (a supernatural creator-deity) has become the de-facto definition of "God" for most people in the regions where theism has been most and disproportionally represented by monotheists. Accordingly, what most people mean by "atheism" in the West is very often "amonotheism". It's important to note that what may destroy monotheism may not destroy theism itself.

I see. What I said should be better refined to, "If that gap were ever filled in, it should be catastrophic to any forms of theism relying on that gap".

Usually, people don't explicitly talk much about the latter since it concerns direct experience rather than propositional belief

Which "direct experiences" do you mean?

 

[AndromedasWake]

There is an assumption by some scientists that if you find laws to explain things then it does away with the need of a God.

Hawking is a modern atheist. He thinks that suddenly science comes along and says here are the answers and explanations, so therefore we don't need God.

But smart Christians do not think that if you can explain things by laws of science then God does not exist. We believe in the beauty and structure and order of the world. And we think that God sustains all of that.

I couldn't see the rest of Mike Swain's article because his enormous head obscured my view.

Loving the comments...

Prof. Hawkin mayby has a outstanding Brain,but he should understand that the Human Brain is not advanced enough (yet) to understand God or the Universe

Profesor Hawkins, Is entitled to his opinion, when I look and see what the odds are of me being in this beautiful earth, I consider my birth a Miracle.
I will always Love and Cherish my Parents who are Co-Cretors with God the Ultimate Creator.

Fair enough that this is mr Hawkins theories but let's face it no one can actually prove god exists either!!

It's all talk and no substance!!

Do they read Hawking's name on an article themed around atheism and just merge Hawking and Dawkins into the same person?
:facepalm:

 

[TheMaw]

Do they read Hawking's name on an article themed around atheism and just merge Hawking and Dawkins into the same person?
:facepalm:

Why think when you can just accuse and be content!

The Daily Mirror gives a critic a chance to create a strawman reply.

There is an assumption by some scientists that if you find laws to explain things then it does away with the need of a God.

Hawking is a modern atheist. He thinks that suddenly science comes along and says here are the answers and explanations, so therefore we don't need God.

But smart Christians do not think that if you can explain things by laws of science then God does not exist. We believe in the beauty and structure and order of the world. And we think that God sustains all of that.

Hmm first they state "it does away with the need of a God" followed later by "And we think that God sustains all of that."

Not a very consistent thought process and "argument".

 

[mirandansa]

Usually, people don't explicitly talk much about the latter since it concerns direct experience rather than propositional belief

Which "direct experiences" do you mean?

Consider when you listen to your favourite music. You directly experience how good the music is rather than believe that the music is good. The truth of the music being good to you does not come second-handedly from a sequence of thoughts but directly as an actual occasion of feeling. It's less of logic-based or faith-based cogitation than pure perceptual intuition. And, at least with the current standard of neurological or cybernetic technology, there is no as much room for proving the subjective properties of your experience as for proving the objective properties of the music's sound-waves. The truth remains experiential and subjective. And it nonetheless is a truth in its own validity claim.

The same can be said about the non-supernatural non-mythical non-religious intuition of the cosmic divinity. This cognitive mode differs from monotheism, polytheism, and deism in that it does not make any claim about some supposedly objective but unverified ontological item. It's rather an expression of the subjective qualitative landscape, just like aestheticism. Theism, in my opinion, need not be the position of an ontological belief in a guy that has to be objectively proven; it can also be the position of a qualitative, intuitive evaluation of the given whole of reality. And this is an important discernment to have if we are to understand what Einstein and Hawking meant by "God" or what Sagan meant by "spirituality" outside monotheistic or religious contexts. They were referring not to a Cosmos-independent objective entity but to a Cosmos-dependent subjective quality. As such, this quality, obtained through direct experience of the Cosmos, is something a rational mind can embrace.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Wasn't Hawking originally against throwing faith into M-Theory. I'm interested in what changed his mind.

Not as far as I'm aware, and I'm sure I'd know. Hawking lent his considerable weight to the Turok/Steinhardt model (hardly surprising, since they work about two doors from each other at Cambridge), and has spent a good deal of time looking at the various gravitational models in M-Theory. A fair portion of TUIAN is devoted to this area.

By the way Leonard Mlodinow is an amazing author. Anyone looking for something life-changing should read Feynamn's Rainbow -- without a doubt one of the most inspiring books I've ever read.

Not read anything by him yet, but I've been keeping half an eye out since I saw him cut Deepity Chopra to ribbons in a most amusing manner. Just ordered this book from Amazon (along with the new book).

Cheers, dude.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'd sort of prefer that scientists stop referring to this "god" nonsense on a regular basis, unless there's a triple helping of derision involved. Otherwise, it gives lay-persons the excuse to pretend that there's some debate over the "god" horseshit that requires scientists getting involved in it. Hawking's mention of the "god" turd, even dismissively, gives it more credibility than it deserves.