Ticker

Stephen Hawking attracts criticism for views on God

By David He

Contributing Writer

Published: Monday, September 20, 2010

Updated: Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Grand Design Cover

AMAZON.COM

Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has rekindled the debate of science vs.God.

The battle between science and religion has been resurrected.

A new book and public statements from famous theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking state that God is not the reason for the creation of the universe.

The book, The Grand Design, asserts that the existence of God is not necessary to explain the origins and mysteries of the universe. Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, co-wrote with Hawking, and Bantam Books published the book on Sept. 7.

The reception for the controversial book has been ambivalent.

In an article entitled "Hawking and God: An Intimate Relationship", Marcelo Gleiser of NPR wrote, "It's extremely misleading to promulgate highly speculative theories as the accepted word of the scientific community." He went on to call the media scrutiny displayed in the book as "irresponsible."

Leading British scientist Baroness Greenfield also criticized Hawking's new book in a radio interview with BBC.

"Of course they can make whatever comments they like but when they assume, rather in a Taliban-like way, that they have all the answers, then I do feel uncomfortable," she said.

Others have praised the book, such as James Trefil, a physics professor at George Mason University, who wrote a glowing review of the book for The Washington Post, calling it "groundbreaking."

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, known for his prominent atheist views, gave particular credit to Hawking, saying, "Darwinism kicked God out of biology, but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace."

In the book, Hawking and Mlodinow set out to answer the fundamental question of how the universe originated, as well as why the laws of physics in our own universe exist the way they do.

The authors start off with the history of how science progressed and evolved, starting with the ancient Greeks up to the 20th century and the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics.

They go on to posit that the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics explain how the universe was able to form from nothing.

Related to this are the "M-theories", a set of theories that state that there are 11 dimensions and that our universe is just one of many infinite universes or part of one giant "multiverse."

Hawking subscribes to these theories, making the argument that if countless other universes exist then there is a real chance that other life exists elsewhere, dispelling mankind's position as the sole source of intelligent life.

"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. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," reads an excerpt from book.

Part of Hawking's argument stems from the beliefs of ancient thinkers and scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton who believed that the universe was created by God especially for the existence of humans. The exact conditions that allow human life to survive – adequate distance from the sun, water, oxygen, carbon, and many other physical and molecular factors - are so precise that even a miniscule change in the equation would alter life as we know it.

The massive complexity of our physical universe and its laws has led many to "use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God," writes Hawking. However he disagrees with this view and claims that physics and M-theory explains the spontaneity of our universe and its relatively small role in a bigger "multiverse."

The Grand Design quickly became the number one bestseller on Amazon.com a few days after its publication.

Hawking, now 68, is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, as well as one of the most famous scientific figures in the world. He studied at Oxford and received his Ph.D from Cambridge, where he held the post of Lucasian professor of mathematics for 30 years. His books include The Universe in a Nutshell and A Brief History of Time, which was a bestseller.

Comments

18 comments
Doritos
Wed Sep 22 2010 10:34
Seems like you are threatened. Sorry I misspelled. I'm a biology major, not an English. I'm only human but I still have a valid point. If you want to point that out as a flaw, congratulations, I give you credit but DON'T discredit my points. That is so non-critical of you (unscientific). -Just sounds like you're putting your thumbs in your ears while you stick out your tongue :P
Revtim
Wed Sep 22 2010 10:08
It's "taliban-like" to state scientific facts in science book?

This is why idiot theists are always calling atheists "militant". They cannot see simple disagreement as simple disagreement. Everything is a holy war against them.

Chris
Wed Sep 22 2010 02:05
"peaople like you are the exact reason society is getting dumber. and if your so confident that you can be that bold. Why cant you put your name on it?"

How about you put a name on your bad spelling, smart-@ss.

"explination" ???

Yeah right. I'm going to take you seriously. You seem to be one of the smart people that will show me how things are supposed to work.

Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 23:10
In this day you cannot exist as a scientist who believes in creation. You would be excommunicated from the entire community. This is because the scientific community already has an agenda: to disprove God. To have an agenda is not scientific AT ALL! And yes, there are scientists, even physicists, who can admit that in their field, their "science" does not have the right to exclude the possibility of a creator. If you are ever curious, there is a movie by Ben Stein called "No Intelligence Allowed." He interviews very famous scientists and you'll be surprised what they'll say. It also goes in depth to point out certain flaws in our scientific culture. If you are challenged by it, good, if not, then you have more thinking to do. Seriously, if any term, process, or math equation does not make sense, why is it easier to accept the scientist's view without speculation? -because we (the general people) are not well informed. We are conditioned to trust these people without question because they are labeled SCIENTISTS when really they are the artists just trying to make sense with what they have.
Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 21:40
In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate, but never completed. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.

In my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: “…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”

E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine Essence (Spirit), matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.

Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 18:19
i think that people need to just let science do what its going to do. the fact of the matter is that science is going to prove itself right everytime and all that angry church groups are going to do is start a mud slinging campain.

just stop you only look dumb doing this. why dont you worry about your interpretaion and stopp objecting to the explination. Also for thos who can only make snide remarks such as "I think God knew in advance that Stephen Hawking was going to state that and that's why Stephen has to blow himself around in a wheelchair. Argue that one. " peaople like you are the exact reason society is getting dumber. and if your so confident that you can be that bold. Why cant you put your name on it?

Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 17:34
"so are we in a Schrodinger's multiverse?"

Sure we are! And we have all the multiple dimensions as well! Your comment is either the result of a beachball bouncing on the keyboard of a computer, a randomly generated response from a remote server, the result of ten thousand monkeys with typewriters, the undeniable truth of the Budha manifested on the interwebs, or a wisecrack made by a slightly drunk student. Before you jump out of my computer screen to reveal yourself, I'll have to assume that you are all of the above at the same time... and I can prove it mathematically!

Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 14:35
think Schrodinger's cat... it seems relative to the moment since time is relative it's self then the moment could be what ever is needed. or it all comes back to a chaos theory of some sort. so are we in a Schrodinger's multiverse?
Steve
Tue Sep 21 2010 13:50
If we do live in a multi-verse, then I long for a universe just like this one, except one that Hawkings doesnt write such trash and instead gets real.
Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 12:37
The problem I have with Hawking's work is that he applies laws that are maintained in a multidimensional world to a non-existence with zero dimensions. I mean, what's the whole point of saying creation out of nothing? Am I missing the point here? Is he approaching the beginning of our universe from the ex nihilo perspective or not? If he is, where did the gravitons come from that supposedly started it all? Wouldn't the laws of physics require at least dimensions to work? If Hawking proposes that the dimensions described by m-theory existed prior to the creation of the multiverse, then he is contradicting himself. The only conclusion I can come to is that he doesn't look at the origin of all things from the ex nihilo position. That would imply that he rather likes the idea of a static multiverse, something that was always there. In other words, this universe is the result of the multiverse. So now we have infinite regress: a solution to the problem that re-introduces the same problem within the solution. The problem is thus never solved! Where did the multiverse come from? Is there even any empiric evidence that this multiverse exists? I don't think so. To me it looks more as if Hawking is creating fictional realities with maths. This is hardly surprising since some theoretical physicists ensist that unipolar magnets exist, and they can prove it mathematically! ROFL!
Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 11:17
So Mr. Hawking, Would it not be true to say that if "our universe is just one of many infinite universes or part of one giant “multiverse" that it is still One universe? And if not, how would you divide One?
Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 10:30
Why do so many people reference "following" Hawkings as if he were some religious prophet? He has made his statement and presented his arguments to support what he believes. It isn't for us to "follow" him only agree, disagree or discuss the possibilities in between. That is why it is called "Theory" isn't it?
Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 10:07
We are ALL gods!
Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 09:45
The late Mortimer J Adler criticised Hawking’s attempts to disprove metaphysical arguments with physics a long time ago: “The Lucasian professor of physics at Cambridge University, holding Newton's chair, is undoubtedly a great physicist and cosmologist, but his understanding of God and creation is woefully deficient. He is philosophically naive and theologically ignorant, both with respect to sacred theology and with respect to philosophical theology, while at the same time referring to God and to God's mind frequently in his book, a book in which, for reasons I will point out, his own principles should prevent him from ever mentioning God… In view of the ever-increasing specialization in all fields of learning and therefore in higher education, we probably cannot look forward to a future in which theoretical physicists will also be persons who have sufficient grounding in philosophy and in philosophical theology, in order to avoid their making unfounded assertions about matters beyond their field of specialization.”

Hawking asks: “What place then for a creator?”

John Cramer, Professor of Physics, University of Washington, gives the answer:

“The force of [Hawking’s] question comes from the fact that the universe he envisions is completely determined, it must be as it is. It cannot be otherwise than it is. No gap remains into which God can be fitted. Hence, Hawking's idea attacks both arguments for the existence of God: from the origin and from the contingency of the universe.

“We must remember that his original characterization is correct. The theory is just a proposal. It is not the only theory that fits the observations. There is a hint of circularity in his choice here since, like Hoyle before him, he is clearly more comfortable with a universe without beginning or end. His reason is the same as Hoyle's: no beginning, no God.

“An important feature of this theory that is easily overlooked is that time, for technical reasons, is treated as a space dimension. That is, real time is not used but is replaced by imaginary time (time multiplied by the square root of -1). Therefore, the lack of a beginning and end occurs in imaginary time. Conversion to real time reintroduces the singularities that imply a beginning and an end. Hawking then suggests "the so-called imaginary time is really the real time." He supports this thought with the remark "...it is meaningless to ask: Which is real, `real' or `imaginary' time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description."

“The usefulness of a description surely is determined by the use one has in mind. If one wants to describe a universe containing no room for God, Hawking's theory may be useful. Hawking has made his choice but no scientific criteria demand we follow him."

Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 09:25
I think God knew in advance that Stephen Hawking was going to state that and that's why Stephen has to blow himself around in a wheelchair. Argue that one.
Lynx Blackstone
Tue Sep 21 2010 09:16
I personally believe in the validity of scientific works over the presumption of faith. I welcome Stephen Hawking's views in this book. I find it strange that in this day and age there are still human beings that feel the need to answer the "Why" question. To them I ask this, why can't we simply exist? Why does there have to be a "why" or a grand reason? I don't think there is one and I am perfectly fine with that.
Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 09:00
I love it when critics complain that Hawking is being highly speculative and that his ideas are unprovable, as if religion is in any better position with respect to fact checking. He's entitled to express his educated opinions and hypotheses on the origin question.
Anonymous
Tue Sep 21 2010 08:00
anyone who thinks scientists are being ,taliban-like, because they say the god hypothesis is unfounded by
science, are simply uninformed or unwilling to let themselves be educated by physics and biology. for those
who criticize hawking, where is their physics? mind you, not their interpretation of physics, but their physics.
View full site