In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed “in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design.”
That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously 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.
Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat””now the entire observable universe””is just one of many.
I’m sorry, Professor Hawking, but I can’t make your logic work. If universes can “appear spontaneously from nothing,” then how does your theory differ from the creation account of Genesis, aside from the fact that the Bible ascribes the creative act to God and your theory ascribes it to nothing in particular?
I’m always amazed at the fact that what the progress of science really shows us is how little we REALLY do know about the complexity of the universe. The more we “know,” the less we know. If it’s really true, that: “Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws.” then how presumptuous it is for scientists to make absolute statements about the existence of God. The fact is that while we do know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we did even 50 years ago, we still know so little about the complexity of the universe(s). Instead of being humbled by what we still do not know, however, many scientists choose to declare that what little we do know proves beyond doubt that there is no God. Why don’t they just admit that given the current state of scientific knowledge, we cannot prove through science that there either is or is not a God. Belief in God remains a matter of faith, not of science. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” With all our scientific progress, what in this passage from Hebrews has really changed?
This is not “science”. It is simply speculation and guesswork cloaked with the jargon of “science”. On the level of the natural materialist worldview it is no better than the religion it purports to hate.
Phil Wainwright at
[url=http://barnabasproject.wordpress.com]Barnabas Project[/url]
comments:
[i]”A prominent scientist has argued that there is no need to invoke the idea of Stephen Hawking to explain the new book, The Grand Design, which will go on sale September 7. ‘Because there is a law such as supply and demand, a book like this can and will create itself from nothing,’ said Robin de Byer, Lucresian Professor of Theoretical Economics at the University of Shepton Mallet. ‘It is not necessary to invoke Stephen Hawking to set the book going.”[/i]
Bruce Robison
So let me get this straight. We used to think that maggots appeared on rotting meat by spontaneous generation. This has since been disproved. Now, Dr. Hawking proposes that spontaneous generation creates an infinite number of universes? My gut instinct tells me that there is still much to discover about the wonders of our uni(or mutli)verse before we decide Dr. Hawking is correct. Let’s not forget that he clung to the so called Hawking Paradox for quite a few years before admitting that it was incorrect.
From the early comments posted at WSJ.com:
[blockquote] For Christians, Creator God is about the least important role for God to serve. Covenant God is far more interesting and doesn’t necessarily conflict with Hawking. [/blockquote]
I suspect that the person who posted this comment at WSJ.com reflects the attitude of many more Christians than we might want to imagine. Squeamishness about Genesis has caused quite a few clergy to pass over creation and move on to other subjects in Confirmation classes for decades (maybe 12 or 13). Of course, orthodox Christians know better. It is not accident that the Creeds begin with the Creator.
Kendall, thanks so much for mentioning Kallistos Ware’s The Orthodox Way at Mere Anglicanism a couple of years ago. Anyone wanting to revisit the Trinity, and Creation in particular will benefit from a careful read and re-read of this brief but excellent volume. Brien Koehler+
I’m always fascinated the way the media fawns over every utterance Stephen Hawking makes about God. I don’t recall anyone ever asking someone like Mother Theresa what her thoughts on Astrophysics were.
Hawking suggests that “gravity” and “quantum theory” can describe a situation where a universe, or multiples thereof, can come into existence form nothing. But this does not at all solve the problem of “First Cause.” It simply moves it back a step to “the First Cause of Gravity and Quantum Mechanics.” And the answer of theologians can remain the same: The First Cause we call God.
The money quote is this, at the end of the article:
[i]”Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.”[/i]
Heard that before? Every one of these theories ends up saying “Ye sssshall be assss godsssss….” Note the sibilants and beware.
Bt. Michael is surely correct. This is pretentious speculation given the appearance of substance merely because Hawking said it. Like Macawber, all this has no visible means of support. The subject is fascinating, much can be said, but Hawking is not going to illuminate the subject. Whatever this is, it isn’t science. Larry
So if the ‘laws of gravity and quantum mechanics’ allow ‘spontaneous generation’ of the universe, where/how/why did these ‘laws’ arise? How can nothing produce something?
IN any physical event in this universe, the laws governing its operation precede the event or the event would be chaotic. Even in the case of the Big Bang and its cognate notions, when the laws governing the universe are said to come into existence with the physical elements, the laws control, and nothing is haphazard or chaotic. Is there anywhere in this universe where the laws do not control physical events? Even random events, like selection in evolution, are lawful. That pattern and order govern all that is is the best argument for a creative intelligence. We speak of probabilities to be sure, not absolutes, but some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as Thoreau said, “as when you find a trout in milk.”
Is the universe an accident? It is possible. Is it probable? There is only one way to hit a bullseye, but an infinite number of ways to miss it. If the the center is ALWAYS hit, as in our universe, what are the chances that it is accidental? It is precisely the extension of this argument that convinced me that I could not reach any other conclusion that there is a creative intelligence at work here because its absence would have meant that no coherent universe could have existed. Science cannot grasp this argument for this simple reason: It does not wish to. And the above is a case in point. Being brainy and being intelligent are not the same thing at all. Larry
Believing Christian scientists (not Christian Scientists!) Owen Gingerich and John Polkinghorne address Hawking’s category mistake in the helpful tea kettle analogy. Why is the water boiling?
A. The water is boiling because the heat from the stove causes the atoms to move faster and faster. When the atoms reach a certain rate of movement, the water moves from a liquid state to a gaseous state. When the vapor pressure of the liquid is equal to the pressure exerted on the liquid by its surrounding environment, the water boils.
B. The water is boiling because I decided to make some tea.
Physical science is by definition limited to answering questions of the A variety–what Aristotle called efficient causality. Physical science does not address questions of the B variety–what Aristotle called final causality, questions of meaning or purpose. By definition, physical science does not ask or answer questions of final causality with regard to the universe: Why does it exist? What is its purpose? Why does something exist rather than nothing at all? Is there a creator?
Physical science not only does not answer these kinds of questions; it cannot. When scientists like Hawking attempt to use physical science to answer questions of final causality, they are making a category mistake. They are entering into the realm of the metaphysician or the theologian, and, as scientists, have no more authority than anyone else who might ask or answer these questions.
When Hawking (and others like him) assume that because physical science addresses only questions of efficient causality that answers in the realm of efficient causality are sufficient to address questions that have to do with final causality, he is confusing a methodological restriction (physical science addresses only questions of efficient causality) with a metaphysical restriction.
Questions about the anthropic principle are questions of final causality, not efficient causality. One can debate whether or not the universe seems to be made for the existence of intelligent life. Hawking says it is not. Polkinghorne and Gingerich say that it is. But in both cases, what is being addressed is a metaphysical question, and one outside the competency of the physical sciences.
Dr. Witt, I think the problem is even worse that that, because the natural materialist worldview rules out the B verity questions. A B verity question cannot even be admitted as a question. Now if a B verity question does exist then we have the unpalatable result for the natural materialist that their would view does not accurately explain the real world, that is the universe as it really exists and not as they wish it to be.
To put it another way, science tells us a lot about the bus and very little about the bus driver. But its even worse when you rule out the existence (or even the possibility of) of the bus driver.
Wonderful thread; one concern. #13, it seems to me an absolute distinction between statements A & B threatens a methodological distinction between statements of fact and statements of value, with the result that value statements lose objectivity. Value has to be immanent in creation in order to be value; otherwise it’s subjective and arbitrary, merely a personal affirmation, hardly a final cause (it turns out I wanted coffee, so I didn’t need to bring the water to a full boil). For me the interesting thing is that Hawking’s “A” argument doesn’t justify the “B” conclusion. As sophisticated and humane as Hawking is, when he’s all done it’s still rational to affirm that the final cause is immanent (same general argument applies for evolution).
I found the article thought provoking, but I also found the title to be totally non-descriptive of the article content. Which leads me to wonder whether the WSJ or Hawking, selected the title to engender the controversy it did.
The article explains why, from a scientific view, god is not necessary for the existence of OUR Universe. No where in the article does it say god is an impossibility, or even that it is more likely than not god does not exist. It simply postulates that there are other logical explanations as to why our universe exists and why it is as it is.
It is impossible to boil modern Cosmology down into a small article. While Hawking is an atheist, he is the consummate scientist, and this article is more than a little misleading as to his real theories. For example the most controversial statement “As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing.” I think this is a vast oversimplification of what these theories actually say. I think a more accurate statement would be. Recent advances in Cosmology strongly indicate the existence of multiple universes, and forces within those universes which we cannot with our current level of technology observe. The forces within these universes can interact with space or other universes to bring into existence new universes with new physical laws.
Ours is a universe of energy and matter. Consequently, in the absence of energy we can detect and matter, our perception is that nothing exists. But in multi-verse theory, that is not true. There may be subatomic particles, forces and dimensions we have not discovered because of the level of our technology or because they do not even exist within our universe; and these particles and forces can interact with space and possibly other universes to bring into existence a matter and energy universe. Truth in labeling would have required this article be entitled “Why we cannot conclude the existence of God from the existence of our universe.”
I do not agree with Brother Michael, that science hates religion, or rules out the “B verity” questions, or even rules out the existence of God. A true intellectual dispute exist between science and religion over the concept of infinity; but most of the conflict between science and religion arises from our lack of confidence as to our place in the universe or multi-verse.
J. Champlin,
As I understand it, the physical sciences do make a methodological distinction between statements of fact and statements of value in terms of the subject matter of the physical sciences. That is, the scientist as scientist investigates the physical conditions under which water boils. In order to do science, he or she deliberately prescinds from questions of final causality (purpose or meaning — because I wanted some tea) insofar as they are irrelevant to the goals of the physical science.
However, this is strictly a question of methodology. A competent scientist has reasons outside the methodology for pursuing scientific questions–the methodology cannot provide motivation–and to be a good scientist cannot divorce him or herself from questions of value. For example, scientists are committed to a high standard of honesty when doing research. Otherwise, results would be unreliable. A scientist who is pursuing a cure for cancer is ostensibly motivated by altruism; yet the cure itself depends on impartial dispassionate commitment to the scientific method. If the study does not produced the hoped for cure, the scientist does not fudge the facts because a cure is desired.
In contrast to the physical scientist, the metaphysician must take into account questions of final causality, and assumes that final causes are immanent. And a metaphysician can be both a scientist and a philosopher or believer, as, I think, are both Polkinghorne and Gingerich. Nonetheless, when Gingerich is operating strictly as an astronomer, he does not reach appreciably different conclusions from an atheistic astronomer because both are committed to the same restrictions to questions of efficient causality. However, Gingerich as a believer can legitimately point out that the complexity and order of the physical universe that he notices as a scientist points to a fine tuning which indicates that the universe is anthropically designed; that it seems as if the universe was intended to produce intelligent beings who believe in and worship God.
Problems arise when scientists confuse a methodological restriction to questions of efficient causality with metaphysical assumptions that efficient causality is all there is. Of course, even when they do so, they often betray their own metaphysical commitments. Hawking’s proposal of multiple universes is a strictly philosophical construct, that goes back to the Medieval theologian Duns Scotus. He is trying to use one metaphysical construct (possible worlds) to undermine another (teleology). If we can posit multiple universes (most of which do not seem to indicate anthropic teleology) than the the anthropic teleology of the universe in which we live can be discounted as simply one chance variation among numerous others. The problem is that multiple universes is an imaginary construct, as are any universes in which the anthropic principle does not apply. In the only universe in which we live, and which, as far as we know, exists, everything seems to have been fine-tuned for intelligent life. And that’s the universe the philosopher has to work with–the one in which we actually live, not an possible multiple universe that exists only in our imagination.
Yes, #17. Some of these multiple dimensions and universes, as I understand it, are elements that make the equations (string theory, etc.) work. But if we can’t do experiments on other universes, we can’t observe them and verify their properties. That returns the whole matter to the realm of philosophy, not science.
There is a methodological confusion of long standing here, because Science is at it heart inductive, from which no certainty can be derived, and religion’s quest is deductive precisely because what it desires is the certainty of necessity. Science requires that we submit to probability, and it searches for means which yield the mos favorable probabilities. If we are to combine science and religion, we must adopt their approach and speak about the probable. And because we have only this universe to work with, our data has to come from here.
WE need to ask, therefore, if it is probable that a universe that has run by law and in which nothing is chaotic, can be made by chance. The inductive evidence here is in fact overwhelming even though we have to agree that this universe could have been made by chance. It makes no difference how many new “laws” the scientists discover. The more they discover, the more certain it is that chance cannot be the cause. They will never discover God, but they will discover that their deepest inquiries encourage to probability of intelligent design. Larry