"One can't prove that God doesn't exist," professor Stephen Hawking told ABC News. "But science makes God unnecessary. "The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator," he added.
This week the world's most famous scientist releases his latest work, The Grand Design, co-authored with the American physicist and best-selling writer Leong Mlodinow. The book has already stirred one of our deepest debates: Did God create the universe?
According to Hawking, something can indeed be created from nothing. He believes our universe was created from nothing. Hawking writes in his latest book: "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." (Nick Watt, "Stephen Hawking: 'Science Makes God Unnecessary,'" ABC News, Good Morning America, September 7 2010)
In an extract of The Grand Design, which is published in Eureka magazine, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” (Laura Roberts, "God Was Not Needed To Create the Universe," Telegraph.co.uk, September 2 2010)
Assumption
Now, let's assume that Stephen Hawking is the greatest living scientist with the greatest scientific mind. In the centuries to come, most assuredly, his work and theory will be challenged by numerous other genius investigators. Science, by its very nature, is often theoretical and certainly subject to change. In fact, Hawkins, himself, is not claiming to have discovered the "Complete Theory of Everything," and he admits it could take centuries for practical physicists to prove or disprove his latest controversial pronouncement.
And, Stephen Hawking is selling a book. This alone makes his findings biased. To set the facts straight, Hawking had theorized previously that "belief in a creator was not incompatible with science." ("Stephen Hawking: God Did Not Create the Universe," BBC News, September 2 2010) So, maybe Mr. Hawking has altered his beliefs to create controversy and a greater market for his work. Is he using God as a marketing technique?
Maybe we would be better served by saying that new scientific discoveries may be just propositional insights about how God works. Regardless of the "Big Bang," items like the origin of matter or the origin of the space occupied by the universe seem to be missing in Hawking's theory. Don't "matter" and "space" require creation?
One might also wonder that if there were nothing but a vast void, where did enough gravity appear to draw sufficient materials into one place to create the big bang since gravity is related to the mass of the object or objects. Did "gravity" create itself? Clearly, the creator is not absolutely denied His work.
I hardly think that Hawking's book is reason enough to believe God was not required for the formation of the universe. Anyone could argue that a Creator with a master plan was the ultimate architect of the universe and use just as much theoretical support as does Hawking.
John Muir, the great naturalist and author (1838-1914), once stated, "There is that in the glance of a flower which may at times control the greatest of creation's braggart lords." The same words may ring true today about the greatest scientists.
Ralph Waldo Emerson spent only the one day with Muir, although he offered him a teaching position at Harvard, which Muir declined. Muir later wrote, "I never for a moment thought of giving up God's big show for a mere profship!" This is the perspective many choose to accept and to adapt to their lives on earth. Given the choice of the pursuits of scientific proof or God-given mysteries, many, like I, prefer to accept the "big show" of God's handiwork and not the "big bang" of so-called scientific certainty.
3 comments:
The beginning of this article is fairly stated, but it starts to go downhill rapidly at the "Assumption" heading. You start off with an argument that people who oppose science often use, that science is always changing and therefore should not be trusted. They will usually point to the "Flat Earth Theory" as proof. This is simply a willful ignorance of what science is and how it works. Science is about expanding knowledge and coming to NEW understandings. If it was unchangeable, it would be dogma and would ultimately fail. Science is also a refining process that builds on past work. Today's understandings may not be perfect, but they are "less wrong" than those of the past. A round earth was less wrong than a flat earth, a spheroid earth was less wrong than a round one, and a pear-shaped earth is less wrong still. Is "less wrong" a good thing? Yes, because science is a tool, tools are useful, and a "less wrong" tool is more useful than a "more wrong" one. For an old tool to be discarded, a new more useful one must be discovered. Science is the process by which they are discovered. Just because an even less wrong tool may be discovered in the future, does not diminish the usefulness of the current one. Even though we don't know all of Pi's infinite digits, that doesn't make 3.14 less useful. The fact that science changes makes it MORE trustworthy than an unchanging dogma. Science is always looking for a better answer and won't hesitate to discard an old tool for a "less wrong" one.
I haven't read Hawking's new book obviously, since it just came out yesterday, but from what I've read about the book he's using the current tools of relativity and quantum physics to come to a NEW understanding about the origins of the universe. I think my favorite part of this article is where you throw your personal understanding of cosmology up against Hawking's and then declare yourself the winner because you're unable to answer your own questions about the origins of gravity, matter, and space/time. A good place to find the answers to those questions might be the book itself. I hope that you'll read it and honestly seek those answers in the process.
Lastly, you wrote, "I hardly think that Hawking's book is reason enough to believe God was not required for the formation of the universe." This is the most interesting line in the article and very important. I want you to think about this question for a while. What WOULD you consider reason enough to believe God was not required for the formation of the universe? Can you articulate it? Are you even WILLING to change your mind? If not, then you are not approaching the issue fairly from the beginning. If your mind is closed to change, then you are simply indicting Hawking for being unable to do the impossible.
Josh, Thanks for providing a very intellectual, articulate review of my post. I really do not dismiss every scientific finding or theory. But, my faith and trust in God surpass my belief in temporal investigation. I would never attempt to disprove the existence of God or readily accept that God did not create the universe. Neither would I dismiss scientific proof. As far as someone's motivation for proclaiming theory, I believe many do this for fame and competitive rewards. I feel articulation is not the absolute proof of anyone's beliefs. And, to suggest I have a closed mind is a pretty slippery slope. After all, Hawking thought the God could likely have been the Creator not too long ago. I am no scientist - I am a blog writer who tries to illicit thought from my readers. We must be open minded with those who believe in God. I do.
Based on what Hawking and Mlodinow have said in interviews, they do not claim to disprove God's existence, nor do they try. What they've done is created a theory that works within the laws of physics, quantum mechanics, and mathematics that explains how the universe may have formed. This explanation works without the intervention of any deity. What they're saying is that God is unnecessary as part of the explanation. People have twisted that into "Hawking disproves God". It's just another case of the usual sensationalized science headlines that we always see to sell magazines and newspapers and website hits. It does not accurately reflect the work or motivations of the scientists.
As for being closed-minded, you wrote in your reply, "My faith and trust in God surpass my belief in temporal investigation. I would never ... readily accept that God did not create the universe. Neither would I dismiss scientific proof." These statements are contradictory. Does this mean that you WOULD accept it if given ample proof? What I wanted you to try and articulate was what this proof might look like. Use your imagination. What evidence or arguments would do it for you? On the other hand, if your mind is unchangeable regardless of the evidence or arguments presented, then how can you claim to be anything but closed-minded on the issue? That's pretty much the definition of closed-minded. Even if Hawking previously thought God played a role, the fact that he has changed his mind based on new evidence would be a great example of open-mindedness. Being open-minded means accepting that everything you know might be wrong.
Please note that when I'm talking about being closed-minded, I'm only talking about this one issue. I'm sure that you're plenty open-minded about a lot of other things in your life. Furthermore, it's perfectly fine to be closed-minded about this. It's not an insult. Perhaps your faith in God cannot be swayed by evidence or arguments. That's fine. It just doesn't put you in a position to fairly criticize someone for failing to do something which cannot be done.
Post a Comment