According to news reports, noted physicist Stephen Hawking has publicly declared that God did not create the world. Should this shake up people?
Interestingly, just before reading the article about Hawking on line I was reviewing some excerpts from Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscript. The Danish philosopher denies that Christian belief in God should depend on objective evidences such as cosmological arguments. In fact, he argues, making faith in God depend on objective evidences and arguments undermines faith.
Personally, I don’t think Hawking or anyone can prove that God is not the creator of the universe. If Hawking is right (according to at least some news reports) the existence of the universe is the ultimate free lunch. It came from nothing without a divine creator or intelligent designer. Although I am no physicist, that seems counter-intuitive to me.
On the other hand, we ought to avoid the old God-of-the-gaps approach to belief in God. Surely authentic faith in God is something more than belief in an objective Supreme Being who is necessary to explain physical reality.
I don’t advocate extreme fideism, but neither do I think Christians should panic everytime a scientist or historian or other scholar “declares” something. I think in this case Hawking, like so many before him (e.g., Carl Sagan) is over stepping his boundaries as a scientist and speaking as a philosopher. I seriously doubt the non-existence of God can be proven (or the non-dependence of the universe on some supreme power greater than it).
In the meantime, as the scientists and philosophers debate the existence of a Supreme Being, I have the feeling they are not talking about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If some Christian (or non-Christian, for that matter) scientist or philosopher could refute Hawking, would I be happy? Yes, but not because Christian faith in God depends on that. The only reason I would be happy about it is that it might help remove a false obstacle to faith put in the way of some seeker after God.
But that seeker won’t find the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the end of a scientific or philosophical argument.
You write, “I seriously doubt the non-existence of God can be proven (or the non-dependence of the universe on some supreme power greater than it).”
I agree, but don’t Christians, in a sense, rely on a similar notion as Hawking? We just push the issue one step further. We say God is not dependent on any higher power. In both cases we posit that something existed without a cause (either the matter that became the universe or God). Neither of us can imagine a true “nothing” (whether matter or God). So with Caputo I wonder whether creation ex nihlio is necessary. It seems that Caputo wouldn’t need to/want to argue with Hawking on this (based on “The Weakness of God”). What do you think of this? Is there a good reason that orthodoxy requires creation ex nihlio? Or is that just another God-of-the-gaps?
Just a quick response to your post, Adam. As I understand the argument, Christian philosophers make a very specific claim in regard to the beginning of the universe, a claim that would not apply to God: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.” Since God by nature is a self-existent, necessary being, there was never a time when he was not. He never “begins to exist,” so he doesn’t have a cause for his existence.
Warm regards,
Jeff
Pingback: Flotsam and jetsam (9/3) « scientia et sapientia
I saw this carried on CNN and I wonder why this is news. Stephen Hawking has been saying for a long time that God is not needed as hypothesis to be invoked to explain how the universe came into being. Hawking says basically the same thing in his “A Brief History of Time.”
I’m also not entirely sure why is should be surprising that the world is basically self-explanatory and that God is not, strictly speaking, needed to be invoked as the “first cause.” Tillich, I think, is the teacher here: “to argue that God exists is to deny him” (ST I, 205).
Pingback: World Wide News Flash
Hawking’s claim will gain some notoriety and influence because of his scientific achievements and acclaim. No doubt, this will shake some people up. But, as you noted, Hawking’s claim is neither scientific nor new. Philosopher Quentin Smith, for instance, has made similar claims, which have been deftly refuted (at least to my satisfaction) by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. As Dr. Craig is wont to say in regard to the “it came from nothing” assertion by Hawking and others: “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” But it seems to me that a bigger issue is at stake here. People tend to align themselves with these big name scientists (Sagan, Dawkins, Hawkings, etc.) on religious and philosophical questions because they view science as the final arbiter of truth on such matters. For as long as that remains at least a plausible assumption to the majority of people, (which in my experience, it does) such claims will continue to carry weight–not based on the rational merits of the claims themselves, but based on the authority of the scientists who make them. It’s noteworthy to point out, as you did in your post, that when a scientist speaks philosophically, he speaks outside of his discipline as a scientist. While he has that right, we are not obliged to consider these claims particularly authoritative–especially when good Christian philosophers, addressing these same questions from within their discipline, have offered more rational and compelling explanations.
An addendum: For those of a scholarly bent interested to pursue the question of an uncaused beginning further, Dr. Craig posted an article on his website entitled “Reflections on Uncaused Beginnings”–a response to Graham Oppy–at Reasonablefaith,org. His article was originally published in Faith and Philosophy.
Good post. It makes me sad wondering how many will read Hawking’s words and be pushed further into the mindset of believing intelligent people discard their belief in God. Hawking is indisputably brilliant at understanding and explaining physics. It seems to me, though, that, when all is said and done, you have two choices about what you believe about the origin of the universe: either a Higher Being created it somehow (through evolution or whatever other means) or it came into being by chance. “Spontaneous creation” is Hawking’s fancy term for chance. I continue to find it highly improbable that chance happenings have brought about life and the universe as we know them today, and believe it takes more faith to affirm such a view than to acknowledge the likelihood of God. People can refer to such authors as Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller for better and more faith-friendly treatments of the subject.
Pingback: Deep Creek Anglican Church Blog » More on Hawking, God…..
Interesting. I’m pretty much in agreement with you on this, I think, Dr. Olson. I’m a Christian, but on the epistemology of God’s existence I am an objective agnostic. The personal nature of God places him outside the category of impersonal forces, or propositions, that are to be proved dispassionately. At most, such methods can only offer a dim reflection of him. Christianity, after all, is not Gnosticism — owning the right knowledge for salvation. And any ability to obtain such objective proof (knowledge beyond reasonable doubt) of God would, to my mind, amount to neo-Gnosticism.
“But that seeker won’t find the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at the end of a scientific or philosophical argument.”
Excellent token. I like the cosmological arguments for the existance of God, but at the end of the day, they are really arguments for the existance of a god, not necessarily Yahweh. I can conclude from your existance that you had a biological father, and even rule out certain men as that father, but that doesn’t mean I would be able to describe perfectly who your father is just by knowing you.
I happen to agree with Hawkings, but only in the aspect of (1) “God is not necessary to explain the existence of the physical universe.” I don’t think Hawkings goes to the extreme of (2) “If God is not necessary to explain the existence of the universe, then God does not exist.” If Hawkings concludes that God does not exist from those premises, I think he is making a move that he cannot make. (2) is false. As you rightly say Dr. Olson, “God” is not reducible to an explanatory principle for why the universe exists.
Now, here is one of the main reasons why I think that (1) is true. I take it that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and I take it that God has all of these properties essentially; ie., any being that is not omnipotent or not omniscient or not omnibenevolent is a being that is not identical to God. Let assume that the following is true: (3) There is a being y such that y is a person and y is the creator of the universe. Now, let me state what I said earlier more formally: (4) For all x, x is identical to God (g) if and only if x is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. To show that y is identical to g, we would need to show that y is identical to x. (Or, we could prove that y is identical to x to show that y is identical to g). (5) Only an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being could create a universe. (5) would certainly do the trick, but why should we believe that (5) is true? Why can’t the being that created the universe only be powerful enough to create a universe and nothing more? If the being that created the universe is only powerful enough to create a universe, I think it is pretty clear that this being is not omnipotent. And if that being is not omnipotent, that being is not God.
But even if I am right, this doesn’t prove that God is not the creator of the universe and it certainly does not prove that God doesn’t exist. All it shows (I think) is that (1) is true.
Jonathan,
You’re right that (1) is not inherently objectionable to an orthodox Christian and (2) seems like an obvious non sequitur. However, your argument addresses the statement with regard to a more robust definition of God than a lot of people would have in mind. When people read ‘God’ in (1), they understand various things like: a creator, anything supernatural or outside the universe, etc. Your argument has shown that (1) is true on your definition of God, but the real question is: is (1) true on Hawking’s?
Hi Greg,
I saw Hawkings say somewhere that he doesn’t believe in a “personal, all-powerful, all-knowing” God. I can’t remember his exact definition, but he said something along the lines of “I believe that if God existed that God would be the complete and consistent set of all the physical laws of the universe.” If that is indeed Hawkings’ definition, it seems that all of the stirring his comments have created have been unnecessary.
There is one basis on which Big Bang cosmology points not just to Diesm, but to the God of the Bible.
Among Deistic creation accounts, the Bible contains the only one which can be taken to be a creation from beyond (and before) the existence of Time and Space themselves.
Some of Hawkins own work (Space-Time Theorms based on the Theory of relativity) indicate that Space, Time, Matter and Energy must have had a single origin event.
The creation accounts outside of the Bible reveal their human origins in that the agent of creation acts within pre-existing Space and Time.
It’s a fairly solid basis by which recent astronomical and physics science points beyond just Deism to the truth of the Bible.
This is a position I hold by my study of the materials of Hugh Ross, though I have no affiliation with his organization.
I’m not sure that I understand this. Are you suggesting that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not the God than-which-none-greater-can-be-conceived? Plenty of Christians have thought this throughout the ages; for instance, Augustine says in De Libero Arbitro that the beginning of true piety is to think of God as highly as possible — that requires a perfect being theology-style conception of God.
Suppose someone comes up with a legitimate proof that a being who is maximally good, omniscient, omnipotent, a se, and creator of the world cannot exist because those attributes are inconsistent. Would you think the Christian faith has been disproven, or not?
I don’t know about the rest of you, but my brain hurts after reading this blog! I love it! Very interesting discussion!
Steven,
I took the point to be that when a seeker truly finds God the experience engages much, much more than our capacities for science and philosophy – it is all encompassing. For me, it has also been life-long because there are always deeper depths and higher heights at which he reveals himself to me. Sometimes I wonder if that is the one thing that could consume the rest of eternity – falling ever deeper in love with God.
I think in this case Hawking, like so many before him (e.g., Carl Sagan) is over stepping his boundaries as a scientist and speaking as a philosopher.
The disciplines of science, philosophy, and theology often intersect, and most practictioners are guilty of “over stepping [their] boundaries”. In the FAQ section of William Dembski’s Uncommon Descent blog, one “faq” reads: “ID theorists are qualified scientists, and they take ID very seriously indeed, as may be seen from this list of peer reviewed and peer-edited papers published in the professional literature. Leading edge ID theorists (Michael Behe, William Dembski, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Dr. Jonathan Wells, and Roger Olsen) have been joined by a follow-on wave of credentialed scientists …”
With respect, if you’re concerned about over stepping your bounds as a theologian, you might consider asking Mr. Dembski to remove you from his list of qualified scientists.
Ummmm…My name isn’t “Roger Olsen.” It’s “Roger Olson.” (See the spelling difference!) He isn’t referring to me.
I’m so embarrased! I’m so sorry, Dr. Olson, for the false association!
… and in reality, I think we’re all qualified to speak on topics of science, religion, and philosophy. Especially when they touch us deeply.