"God Not Necessary" - Stephen Hawking

Greetings!

I was reading about Stephen Hawking's new book: The Grand Design, co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow. An excerpt from his book is as follows:

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


IOW, God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.

Thoughts?

(I can't wait to get my hands on his new book; he writes so every day folk, like me, can understand.)

Peace!

I've long thought that human ideas about deities are our own constructs. Probably, storytelling developed among those who escaped various predators and natural disasters to forestall their going completely nuts. Makes sense that the ability to explain causes and other things we don't know by making up something to explain them became an evolutionary advantage. We can't stop a hurricane from happening or prevent earthquakes, so deities being angry or offended and destroying things are simply an extension of human tendencies.

I'm really intrigued by the idea that spontaneous generation is a logical outcome of the laws of physics. "No God Required," in other words. Somehow, I bet that's a movie title that Ben Stein won't ever be associated with.

Don't get me wrong, I like Hawking. However, my problem with this is that a lot of fundamentally atheist scientists blindly accept there are laws of physics that frankly have no rhyme or reason - Like the law of gravity.

We can delve into gravity and magnetics as much as we want, and understand its proportions and ratios and the hows of how it works, but the why part is still a total mystery. There's no reason WHY every particle should be attracted to every particle, and north poles should be attracted to south poles, and until they figure out a why, there will always be a need for god.

Why does he think what he says makes a difference? Does he really believe that I'm just gonna STOP believing in God because Stephen Hawking said so?
Does he think HE is going to undo thousands of years of belief simply by his proclamation?
99% of the people he's writing to believe, or don't, as he does. So? Big deal he's telling people who already think this way what they already think....

Just goes to show that even geniuses can be pretty stupid.

ooops...duplicate posted instead of editing

Wait a minute here...despite my atheistic statement above, Hawking isn't necessarily saying he thinks there is no God.

It seems to me that Hawking might be saying God wouldn't have had to create the Universe outright but merely to establish the organizational pattern of laws that enabled the Universe to come into existence--i.e. the laws of physics. If so, that's somewhat reminiscent of the Classical Greeks' belief that Deity was the master logician.

Note these sentiments:

[Richard] Lea reminds us that at the end of “A Brief History of Time” Hawking said, “If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of reason – for then we should know the mind of God.”

Somewhat controversially though this belief in God doesn’t equate with believing that the universe was created by God as many who believe in God might say, which is causing a media storm. The new book looks into the ‘grand design’ of the universe and asks if it was a benevolent creator that set thing in motion, or if in fact it can all be explained with science. Now he makes the statement, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing … It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” --Debbie Turner [emphasis mine]

Source

Coolness! Our public library has 3 copies of The Grand Design on order, and I got the third reserve so should get it as soon as it's ready for checkout. I love how you can reserve and have the book delivered to the library branch closest to where you live. Unfortunately, I'll be restricted to two weeks with no renewal since it's a reserve. Rats! Guess I'll have to neglect housework more than ever in order to power right through it.

Certainly hope my new glasses arrive soon so I can read comfortably again. Being damnably nearsighted sucks.

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:Don't get me wrong, I like Hawking. However, my problem with this is that a lot of fundamentally atheist scientists blindly accept there are laws of physics that frankly have no rhyme or reason - Like the law of gravity.

We can delve into gravity and magnetics as much as we want, and understand its proportions and ratios and the hows of how it works, but the why part is still a total mystery. There's no reason WHY every particle should be attracted to every particle, and north poles should be attracted to south poles, and until they figure out a why, there will always be a need for god.

The why part is not much of a mystery. Gravity is the field effect of the energy latices that we perceive as matter. Energy exists as free energy, whereas matter exists as bound energy. Gravity is proportionate to mass both in its generation and its effects, so it is easiest to see the effect of gravity on the greater concentraions of mass, those being matter, particularly larger (stellar and planetary) masses, but it is both born from and affecting even the smallest alpha partical (electron) whose mass is nearly undetectable.

Small masses largely canel each other out in effect, large masses tend to have effects more noticable over distance. Like the nuclear forces, gravity and magnatism lose power at different rates over distance, so at any given distance one or both may be the primary force acting on the studied body.

Masses of high enough concentration (black holes) show us that even the barely detectable mass of free energy is affected by gravity as light bends or even collapses into the largest masses. It is not incomprehsible, it just requires you to accept that energy and matter are states, not different things.

John T Mainer wrote:

TigersEyeDowsing wrote:Don't get me wrong, I like Hawking. However, my problem with this is that a lot of fundamentally atheist scientists blindly accept there are laws of physics that frankly have no rhyme or reason - Like the law of gravity.

We can delve into gravity and magnetics as much as we want, and understand its proportions and ratios and the hows of how it works, but the why part is still a total mystery. There's no reason WHY every particle should be attracted to every particle, and north poles should be attracted to south poles, and until they figure out a why, there will always be a need for god.

The why part is not much of a mystery. Gravity is the field effect of the energy latices that we perceive as matter. Energy exists as free energy, whereas matter exists as bound energy. Gravity is proportionate to mass both in its generation and its effects, so it is easiest to see the effect of gravity on the greater concentraions of mass, those being matter, particularly larger (stellar and planetary) masses, but it is both born from and affecting even the smallest alpha partical (electron) whose mass is nearly undetectable.

Small masses largely canel each other out in effect, large masses tend to have effects more noticable over distance. Like the nuclear forces, gravity and magnatism lose power at different rates over distance, so at any given distance one or both may be the primary force acting on the studied body.

Masses of high enough concentration (black holes) show us that even the barely detectable mass of free energy is affected by gravity as light bends or even collapses into the largest masses. It is not incomprehsible, it just requires you to accept that energy and matter are states, not different things.

You've explained more of the "how", but not the "why". A good article on "how" though. One of my favorite articles from Wired is from the "Things we don't know" series, which also covered gravity.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/bigquestions.html?pg=3#gravity

What causes gravity?
Isaac Newton first figured out the fundamental nature of gravity in the late 1600s. By unraveling the mysteries of planetary movement and Earth’s pull on its inhabitants, he described modern physics. But more than three centuries later, that’s still all we have: an understanding of the effect, with almost no grasp of the cause. Is gravity carried by an elementary particle? Is it some fundamental feature of spacetime we don’t understand? Why can’t gravity be reconciled with the better-understood quantum forces? All these questions remain unanswered. Many scientists think gravity must be generated by a massless particle, and have even dubbed it the graviton. But experiments to detect this entity (using a super-collider, for example) can’t be performed with current technology. “To generate the energy required to investigate a gravity particle, we believe, would produce a black hole,” says Harvard physicist Lisa Randall. “Space itself just breaks down.” Right now, mathematics is the best investigative tool for getting gravity to square with subatomic forces like electromagnetism. But making the math work requires dealing with exotic string theory notions like invisible 10-dimensional space. “We’ve always understood that gravity was different,” Randall says. “If we figure out why in the next 30 years, there will be another big, new question. I guarantee it.”
- John Hockenberry

The more I think about it the better I like the idea of a deity who sets up a complex system of laws that could produce something like our Universe and then lounges around on a cloud with brewski in hand watching to see what happens. Maybe placing a few bets with angels and various minor deities on the likely outcome.

Yep, I could feel quite fond of that sort of deity.

DOT, is that a hint of sarcasm?

Thanks for your answers guys; great food for thought!!!

My gut feeling on this topic is that Hawking is missing the point. He's thinking of God/deity from an analytical pov and that's not where we find Godness.

I think Godness is found in life itself... in the act of love.... in the leaves waving in the trees and acts of kindness. I think this is why the word *love* is mentioned so many times in the bible... which even says *God is love.*

I think it's why we see that same theme echoed in many other faiths.

But this isn't science. It's just my opinion

Religion is never supposed to be science, and vice versa. Those who think they are supposed to be are missing the point.

Those who try to change either side's mind are just plain stupid.

With all the problems and issues in the world, you'd think he could find something that hasn't been BEATEN TO DEATH. I mean, this "God wasn't needed/didn't do it vs Yes, He did" bullshit is something I've been told for, oh... the last 40 years...

LOL TM!

It isn't a very newsworthy conversation, is it? (Though I'm always glad to see SH in the news, and I'm happy about the new book. )

SG - excellent point; so true!

(One a side note: this topic was inspired by an over the top rant I read on my facebook newsfeed... one of my long-ago friends is now an apparent zealot.)

Sakhaiva wrote:

DotNotInOz wrote:The more I think about it the better I like the idea of a deity who sets up a complex system of laws that could produce something like our Universe and then lounges around on a cloud with brewski in hand watching to see what happens. Maybe placing a few bets with angels and various minor deities on the likely outcome.

Yep, I could feel quite fond of that sort of deity.

DOT, is that a hint of sarcasm?

Oh, no. Not in the least. I truly like the idea of a deity who could do the setup and then would be hands-off enough to sit back and simply watch things unfold. There's much to be said, I think, for the Deists' belief that God created the Universe with definite laws and then left it to evolve as it would.

I find the Genesis account of God's role entirely too hands-on and uber-parental.

Sakhaiva wrote:My gut feeling on this topic is that Hawking is missing the point. He's thinking of God/deity from an analytical pov and that's not where we find Godness.

I think Godness is found in life itself... in the act of love.... in the leaves waving in the trees and acts of kindness. I think this is why the word *love* is mentioned so many times in the bible... which even says *God is love.*

But isn't the ability to think and reason an essential tool for helping us to become better people--when we use it, that is? Sure, love is important, but weighing what we want to do before we act, determining which is the best option, analyzing the consequences--all those are part of behaving lovingly. It's not just a reflex or instinctive behavior that we can do without thinking, I don't believe.

Thinking and reasoning are part of it. Why do we have that ability?

And, I beg to differ... Loving and caring are instinct. If you don't believe that...Look at someone with their pet dog. Or, go to Facebook and look at the pictures of my daughters with Bingo. If that is not love...then there is no such thing. And, you're not going to tell me that my daughter, at 2, actually THOUGHT about loving the dog, or that that dog thinks and reasons his actions toward us.
Our 17 pound, 12 inch tall dog attacked an Akita who was walking toward Charlie. Bingo did not reason or think about it. I jumped in with a bat and had every intention of killing that Akita.... I had 3 seconds to make the decision. I did not think or reason it out. My "son" was in harm's way and I was going to do what it took to save him.

I really think we're being premature in assuming we know what Hawking means. After all, we're well aware of the media's tendency to pull out of a forthcoming book the isolated statement sure to cause the biggest uproar. We don't even know if he is implying that there is no God. All he said in the statements Sakhaiva quoted is that the complexity and workings of the laws of physics are such that the birth of our Universe could be a logical outcome and doesn't require being directly created by God.

Granted, that view if it proves to be his, contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but aren't most of us here inclined to view the Genesis story as metaphorical to illustrate the might of God?

Why is it any less awe inspiring or wondrous to conceive of a God who could think and plan so precisely as to be able to set up the laws of physics so that our Universe could come into being without any further effort on his part?

DotNotInOz wrote:I really think we're being premature in assuming we know what Hawking means. After all, we're well aware of the media's tendency to pull out of a forthcoming book the isolated statement sure to cause the biggest uproar. We don't even know if he is implying that there is no God. All he said in the statements Sakhaiva quoted is that the complexity and workings of the laws of physics are such that the birth of our Universe could be a logical outcome and doesn't require being directly created by God.

Granted, that view if it proves to be his, contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but aren't most of us here inclined to view the Genesis story as metaphorical to illustrate the might of God?

Why is it any less awe inspiring or wondrous to conceive of a God who could think and plan so precisely as to be able to set up the laws of physics so that our Universe could come into being without any further effort on his part?

That is my impression, he is stating clearer than he has in the past, that according to the current knowledge of physics, the existence of the universe can be explained without having to be sourced to a deity. I realize for some the cosmological argument has been their "logical proof" for the existence of YHWH, and despite the fact that it has been refuted a number of times, or at least shown to be just another case of special pleading, has not stopped people from using it as "evidence" for YHWH's existence. Frankly I'd be surprised if Hawking's statement and publication will change the minds of such folk.

As for your reply that love and caring are instinctive, you misunderstand my implication, Tina, when I said that I think thought and reason are part of loving behavior.

I may have misunderstood Sakhaiva's point about love, but too often I think we regard science and logical thinking as cold, unfeeling, and unloving. That's what I was referring to.

I don't think we should separate the aims of science from love necessarily. Seems to me a variety of love to seek to replace ignorance with knowledge and to learn as much as we possibly can so as to better understand our role within the overall scheme of things as well as to make life better, healthier, more responsible, more comfortable, etc.

Interesting...Hawking may indeed be the much-reviled atheist scientist after all, not that I care one way or the other.

"However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."

A Brief History of Time - (page 193 - actually the concluding paragraph!)

In a later work Black Holes and Baby Universes and other Essays, 1993 Stephen Hawking revealed that A Brief History of Time remained on the bestseller list of The New York Times for fifty-three weeks, that as of February 1993 it had been on The Sunday Times best seller list for 205 weeks, and that translations into 33 languages other than English had already been published.
Also in Black Holes and Baby Universes, Hawking goes so far as to attribute a marked increase in sales to this - discovery of a complete theory of everything - means - knowing the mind of God - quotation which was probably from his point a view nothing more than a metaphor indicative of an understanding of the universe which was complete and objective.
"In the proof stage I nearly cut the last sentence in the book... Had I done so, the sales might have been halved."

Source

From a cynic's standpoint, can't deny he has an instinct for what will drive sales.

Although, perhaps he left the "mind of God" bit because he liked the grandeur of the metaphor. Sure does add oomph to the conclusion.

I really don't know why people get their lingerie so wadded anyway over things like this. It's not as if society in general hasn't long since figured out that many of the Bible's dictates reflect outmoded and sometimes quite inhumane customs by present standards and consequently are quietly ignored even by those claiming to be literalists.

DOT, going back a few posts.... I started to feel a bit bad about my post in that I have not read the book yet. I'm basing much of my posts on a few lines taken out of context.

We should revisit after we get our copies!

Catching back up... he totally has an instinct re: book sales. Also readability; so many intellegent folks can talk about complex things in very complex ways.... it takes a highly gifted person to speak of complex things in easy-to-understand terms.

Let me preface my remarks here by confessing to a couple of biases. First of all, I have a profound respect for Stephen Hawking. He does indeed make complex scientific and mathematical things comprehensible to folks without specialized training, which is not at all easy to do (although I have fond hopes of doing it myself in a book I have written in my head but not in any more publicly available media, yet). I also cannot fathom the strength of will necessary for him to continue to live an obviously vital and reflective life while under the circumstances of his illness. I also should state that my view of spirituality is as much influenced by science as by religion and philosophy. (I should really correct that to say just, "religion," since reading pure philosophy almost always gives me a headache!) I should also confess that I have not read his most recent book, either.

But while I have great respect for the man and for science, it has been my experience that those who classify themselves as "atheist" usually don't believe in some concept of God that I don't believe in either. Mortimer Adler, in his book, How to Think About God, does as good a job at arguing logically for the existence of some sort of god than anyone I've ever read, and I have found no flaw in his logic. But he acknowledges in his concluding chapter that the "God" he believes he has proven exists is not at all like the God of most religious folk. We often confuse "believing in" with "believing in the existence of," which are two very different things. There are many human beings I do not "believe in," who nonetheless I am convinced exist, however much I might wish it otherwise.

For me, it's the same issue when people ask me if I believe in anything "supernatural." It depends entirely on how you define it. If anything occurs, I consider it "natural," since "natural" refers to anything that is usual and customary in the universe and does not depend upon the actions of a human to produce. Therefore, the "God" I believe in is really quite natural, although I believe in many, many things that are outside the boundaries of logic and science as I understand them, which is often what someone means by "supernatural." When people talk about "miracles" as proving the existence of the "supernatural," I get off the train. To take one example, if the Red Sea parted for Moses by the action of God, then most people would call that "supernatural" and therefore all the more remarkable, because seas don't normally part. But if it could be proven that the Red Sea does indeed seem to "part" at times (and I have actually read such conjectures), most people would think that means this event (and I'm just leaving out, for the moment, the argument that it never really happened) wasn't "supernatural" nor a "miracle." I, however, think that if God did not help Moses at all, and the Red Sea just happened to engage in this clearly unusual natural phenomenon and part just long enough for the Hebrews to cross at the moment Moses came to it, and then just happened to close up again in time to drown the pursuing Egyptians, THAT would REALLY be a miracle! So while I don't find either "miracle" or "supernatural" to be "necessary," according to my reasoning, I do believe that there is a God based upon personal experience. Apparently, Mr. Hawking has not had that experience, or he frames it rather differently.

Just a technical note related to a part of the earlier discussion: gravity does not, in fact, exist, at least not according to Einstein. Mass does not cause an "attracting force" to other mass, but rather bends the space-time continuum in such a way as to bring mass in closer three-dimensional proximity to other mass. An object on Earth that seems to be "falling" due to attraction to the Earth is simply following its preexisting straight trajectory through space-time, which is warped by the mass of the Earth. (This is just one example of how those who elevate "Scientism" to their religion are often wrong, since they're usually relying on a view of the universe as seen by Descartes or Newton, instead of truly current science, which in fact accepts many spooky and seemingly "supernatural" things.)

I'm about a third of the way into The Grand Design and must say that Hawking does not seem to me to give much credence to belief in God.

So it appears that those uproaring about Hawking's atheistic view of the origin of the universe may be correct in asserting his support for that view.

Tempest in a teapot, in other words.

Just because Hawking thinks so doesn't mean anyone else must agree with him.

Weeelll, I just finished The Grand Design, co-written with Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow (but guess whose name is in a font three or four times larger than whose?). I don't pretend to understand it fully; both spacetime and quantum theory are still an "Oooookay, if you say so..." for me.

I think that Hawking and Mlodinow are strongly implying if not verging on saying outright that gods are explanations for things people don't understand, explanations that they've come up with when they hadn't enough information or technology to draft a more reality-based theory. Of course, "reality" itself is the product of human perception. What's "out there" from our standpoint is what our brain interprets from various inputs.

Seems to me that "the grand design" is akin to "the mind of God" in that both phrases suggest that we haven't yet achieved a full, objective understanding despite being somewhat closer to it than we were when we came up with the idea that some deity/ies created this planet "perfect" for sustaining life as we know it.