Hawking Comes Clean

quote:

---

''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.''
-Stephen Hawking
"THE Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded."
-Article

​

Sounds to me like Mr. Hawking has grown tired of trying to stay politically correct and pander to the religious in his public views on the beginnings of the universe.

​

This is all from his new book "The Grand Design".

​

Truth on his views?
Or simply advertising propaganda?

​

What do you think?

​

I think that, sure, it's just his say-so. But, when that "some guy" is, arguably, the smartest guy on the planet... it tends to carry a little weight

---

It sounds like Hawking (like LaPlace) is arguing against a "God of the gaps." But he must assume that "there is a law such as gravity." This is the "elephant in the room." Why is there "a law such as gravity?" Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the law of gravity (or any physical law) keep working consistently? Why does the universe behave according to these laws? Are physical laws really "inevitable" as Hawking believes? Are physical laws logical prior to the universe's existence (as his statement implies), or is their existence contingent on the universe? These questions are all metaphysical, not scientific. Science can tell us how these laws work (in a mechanistic sense), but not why they work or exist (in an ontological sense).As Donald MacKay wrote in his excellent booklet, "The Clockwork Image:" Presumably, Hawking's metaphysical perspective would see the "laws of physics" as some sort of "inevitable," self-generating, self-sustaining, perhaps eternal, principles of the universe. The biblical perspective would see them as something metaphysically much simpler; contingent minute-by-minute on God, their consistency a direct consequence of God's consistent character.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

My friend John Lennox explained this more clearly than I did: from the Daily Mail Online, Sept 3, 2010, Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Daily Mail OnlineEdited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

No, there is a fundamental difference between the universe itself and the laws which describe its operation. The universe is a physical entity, with properties such as mass, energy, and dimension. The laws are descriptions, principles, or rules which possess none of these properties. In his quotes: and in the summary from the article linked in the OP: Hawking assumes that the universe is explained by God OR the laws of physics. This is a "God of the Gaps" perspective, which inherently sets God and the laws of physics against one another. This is not the worldview that Lennox, or MacKay, or I hold to, and does not represent the type of God we believe in. We see no conflict between God and the laws of physics.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

But that's not what I claimed. I claimed that the laws of physics are metaphysically simpler in a biblical perspective than in an atheistic perspective. In the biblical worldview, the universe and its laws are creations of an eternal, infinite, uncaused, complex God. In an atheistic worldview, God does not exist and His attributes must be ascribed to the universe and its laws. The universe and its laws become self-created, uncaused, and complex. The universe effectively becomes deified.As the Apostle Paul said of those who reject God: Consider an automobile. Why postulate a human designer and builder, which is much more complex than the automobile itself? Isn't it simpler to postulate that the automobile was self-caused? By a naive application of Occam's razor, this postulate would seem better. But this ignores the fact that the automobile is metaphysically very different under the two perspectives. An automobile which is able to generate itself is metaphysically much more complex than an automobile which is just an inanimate creation of someone else.The biblical, theistic picture of the universe is not simply the atheistic picture with God added to the picture. This may describe Deism, but not biblical theism. Theistic and atheistic worldviews have very different conceptions of the complexity of the universe and its laws.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

Does Hawking really use the terms "laws of physics" (or "laws of nature") and "universe" as interchangeable? He really does not distinguish between the physical entity and the laws which govern/describe it? If this is what you think he means, can you please provide some support for such a definition or standard usage of the term "laws of physics" or "laws of nature," either by Hawking or by someone else? I have a hard time believing that Hawking is this sloppy in his language.Perhaps some small subgroup of theoretical cosmologists actually does use the terms in this way. But I've never heard such usage. Not in grad school, not at any of the national labs where I've worked, not among the particle physicists or cosmologists who I work with now, not in wikipedia.But I'll admit that most scientists would be a bit uncomfortable with the perspective that the laws are only descriptive. Most scientists want to view the laws as something more fundamental, more basic, more integral to the fabric of the universe. I am fairly sure that this is Hawking's perspective. But this is a metaphysical perspective, not a scientific one. Not quite; these are two different types of explanations. Science is mechanistic where theology is more teleological. It's not God OR the laws of physics; it's God AND the laws of physics. I would answer that God did it, by upholding the law we know of as Newton II. No. But Hawking's claims went further; he claimed that God was not needed, implying that God does not exist. I completely agree that we do not need to mention God when doing physics. But Hawking did mention God, and that's the problem.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

Not requiring a god does not imply that no god exists.

---

Agreed. But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement.

quote:

---

The only thing it implies is exactly what it says: if a god does exist, it is not necessary to the universe functioning as normal. If the god does not exist, then we wouldn't notice the difference.

---

Whether or not these statements are true depends on one's metaphysical view of the universe.There's a big difference between the following two statements:
1) It is not necessary to invoke God in order to scientifically explain the functioning of the universe.
2) God's existence is not necessary for the functioning of the universe.The first is a statement of methodological naturalism, accepted by nearly all practicing scientists and having no metaphysical implications. The second is a metaphysical claim about the universe.If this distinction seems too subtle, consider the following two statements:
1) It is not necessary to invoke oxygen in order to do mathematics.
2) The existence of oxygen is not necessary for us to do mathematics.The first statement is true; the second is false.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

No, like most intelligent people, he sees context as important. If he states

​

Hawking writes:

​

''Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.''

do you really think that by "law" he is merely talking about our current understanding? How stupid do you think he is? A correct paraphrase of what he said is "because of the nature of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".

​

Now, I would never actully speak in such terms. I would always deny any kind of "creation from nothing" to attempt to describe the situation accurately. Stephen doesn't give a shit - he's putting it this way as he knows it will kick up. He enjoys that.

---

OK, I think I understand and agree with your complaint. I had claimed (and quoted MacKay and Lennox) that scientific law is descriptive. But Hawking's use of the term seems a bit different. I think we often use the terms "scientific law" or "law of physics" in two closely-related senses:
1) Our scientific description of the way the universe behaves
2) The behavior of the universe which we are trying to describe scientificallyHawking's use above is closer to the second. The universe behaves in a certain way, we study this, we describe it mathematically and give it a name, "gravity."

quote:

---

Then you've never worked in or amongst those working in quantum gravity - or you have not been privy to their conversations. Did you not even study any quantum cosmology in your grad work? Go chat to Jim Hartle - he can't be too far from you - or Joe Polchinski.

---

No, I don't work in quantum gravity, and I've never studied quantum cosmology, even though I did my thesis in an astrophysics group. I am an experimentalist, and I work with experimentalists, some of whom do experimental astrophysics (sky surveys, dark matter and dark energy searches, etc.). I know some folks who do simulations of binary star collapse, but I don't know much about their research.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger