Stop the presses! “God did not create the universe, Stephen Hawking revealed yesterday.” That was the opening line for yesterday’s UK Telegraph piece Has Stephen Hawking ended the God debate? Apparently, it provoked considerable consternation among Christians.
And a lot of lame responses.
It’s not like we haven’t heard some scientist or intellectual make that declaration before. Nevertheless, those claims seem to induce the dopiest responses from Christians. Yesterday, I followed several threads regarding Hawking’s statements and caught myself shaking my head more than once — not because of atheistic assertions, but because of Christians’ canned answers.
A typical response — with the pieces rearranged — went something like this:
“God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”
Whoa! That probably sent Hawking and his fanboys reeling, huh? C’mon, do believers understand how stoopid that sounds? No, I’m not disputing whether or not “God said it.” I happen to believe He did. However, my belief that God said it, doesn’t settle it.
But my favorite response yesterday was:
“Genesis. ‘Nuff said.”
Really? Just… Genesis. End of argument.
I’m sure I’ll be misinterpreted for saying this, but I can totally understand why some atheists dismiss religious folk. Christians do more to reinforce stereotypes than their opponents do. And flippantly spouting clichés, especially in context of a discussion with such intellectual overtones, makes us sound like the brainless zealots we’re already believed to be.
Listen, there are reasons WHY I believe God said it. There are reasons WHY I believe Genesis should be included in the cosmological debate. If I’m unprepared to articulate the WHY, or even worse, don’t understand it, resorting to bumper stickers, one-liners, sound bites, and religious jingles doesn’t further my cause.
Agreed. We can and should do better than that.
It’s probably to soon to try and refute his arguments until the full book is released to the public. I think the statements released yesterday were just part of the introduction to the book, if I read correctly.
Still, one excerpt had Hawking saying that the existence of the law of gravity argues for spontaneous creation. Huh? That doesn’t make any sense to me. How do you get from point A to point B?
He also states that the discovery of other planets orbiting other stars makes our world less unique and special, and less likely to have been created by God. Unless all of these worlds share the touch of the same artist, perhaps?
Yes, Mark, the law of gravity quote threw me off as well. Did the law of gravity exist before time? If so, how do any laws exist without a Lawgiver? I’m hoping Hawking addresses that in the book. But I’m guessing that with quantum mechanics in full play (theoretically speaking), many answers need no longer be tethered to what we think is logical.
While admitting to being wholly on Hawking’s side in this one, I quite agree that the purported connection between gravitation and spontaneous creation is anything but obvious.
Then again, the finer points of (scientific) cosmology are far from obvious to anyone who doesn’t study that stuff for a living.
I don’t study that stuff for a living, but it does interest me, so I’ve taken the time to understand some of the concepts behind modern cosmological theories. I couldn’t possibly teach a class on them, but in very broad terms I “get it.”
What Hawking is saying, if I may surmise, is probably something you have to be Stephen Hawking to actually understand. But I’ll bet it goes something like this:
1. The law of gravitation, when expressed within the framework of string theory (something else Hawking referenced in his announcement) has a mathematical form of such-and-such.
2. String theory itself is a mathematical interpretation of how the universe is theorized to operate.
3. Something about the way the math of string theory gravity interacts between the math of string theory generally provides a mechanism by which something (the universe) could come from nothing: spontaneous creation.
Is Hawking right? Beats the heck out of me. I bombed out of math at differential equations, let along the incredibly complex math cosmologists have to cope with. I’m hardly in a position to look at the equations and say “oh, sure, I see right here where gravity could make stuff just pop into existence.”
But my guess is, that’s the gist of Hawking’s idea. Just because Hawking’s statement makes me go “Huh? So how’s that work, then?” doesn’t mean the idea is wrong. What it means is that I’m not even remotely close to being someone who is competent to judge whether it’s right or wrong. To me, because I do have a vague inkling about the concepts of string theory and what the search for a theory of “quantum gravity” is all about, Hawking’s statement is at the very least a plausible one. I won’t be able to do any better than that until Neil DeGrasse Tyson or one of those other celebrity scientists comes along and can explain the nuances of Hawking’s idea in terms I can understand.
We must all be cognizent of the limitations of our own knowledge, and not make the error of mistaking our expertise in subjects we have studied for evidence of any kind of expertise in subjects we haven’t studied. That goes for you, Mark H., too. Just because you say “Huh, that doesn’t make any sense to me” about Hawking’s claim doesn’t mean you are necessarily competent to judge the claim. Maybe you are–show me your degrees in advanced mathematics, physics, and cosmology and I’ll gladly agree with you–but then again, like the 99.many-9s percent of the population who doesn’t have that background of study (which includes me too), maybe you’re not.
It pays to keep an open mind. Let’s see what the experts have to say about it over the coming months, because while my opinion on the truth of this claim isn’t worth a warm cup of spit, what I can guarantee is that Hawking’s claim is bound to spark a whole lot of discussion and commentary within cosmology circles.
Jason, thanks for visiting and for the great comments! I totally get that there levels of education that, at some point, everyone must bow down to. What I hedge against, and believe other Christians do too, is the notion that human knowledge — even expert knowledge within a specific field — can somehow unlock a Universal Grail. I have no trouble conceding elements of quantum theory. Heck, in many ways it corroborates a biblical worldview. But to suggest, as apparently Hawking does, that some theories or formulas (even highly complex ones) prove the non-existence of God, is absurd. Until one can know everything about everything, we can’t conclusively say that God doesn’t exist. And, without doing the math, the chances of the human mind knowing Everything is probably, um, impossible. I mean, what if God exists in a form scientists have yet to discover? Anyway, thanks so much for your comments, Jason!
Jason,
I wasn’t offering my comment as a rebuttal to Mr. Hawking’s theory by any means. All I was saying was that I didn’t understand the point he made in the statement that was quoted. I’m sure if he did explain it to me (using string theory, etc.) I wouldn’t understand it. Mr. Hawking has probably forgotten more about physics than I’ll ever know.
I was agreeing with Mike that Christians need to know what they believe and why they believe it, and be able to offer up good explanations as to why. I do believe that God exists and is the creator of the Universe. I am not qualified to argue string theory and quantum physics with Stephen Hawking. But the key word here is “theory”. I think Stephen Hawking is a brilliant mind, and a voice well worth listening to and considering. But that doesn’t mean he is right all the time.
If you’ll notice in my comment above, I also said it’s too soon to try and refute his comments. Let the book be released, let’s hear what he has to say in its entirety, and then start debating the merits. Mike is simply calling for a reasoned defense of Christianity at that time.
Read Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament by John H. Walton. Also the same historian has written a book on Genesis that is very helpful. As far as Hawkins argument, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”. Hawkins is so embittered he doesn’t even realize he’s not making sense.
I love how they use “science” as their foundation. Athiests and particularly global warming hoaxers haven’t used science to “prove” anything for a long, long time. Actually since the beginning of time as we know it. They just make up new names for spiritual implications and create an alternative to the spiritual reality labeling it with a new scientific sounding name.
I’m at the tail end of Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief, and I just read a section where he said some Christians use theistic belief as an explanation of natural phenomenon (he quotes atheist Phillip Quinn in that theistic belief is “explanatorily idle”), instead of a set of proposition that someone happens to believe, however they arrived at that belief. These cute assertions you mention might be acceptable to people who have accepted the set of theistic propositions (“God created x”, for instance) but to an atheist they do no good, especially since atheist tend to tailor their beliefs to what is materially certain, not necessarily to propositions about the supernatural, which is not materially certain to everyone.
So, in summation, stop with the stupid talk, Christians. Okay?
You’re asking human beings to stop the stupid talk? It’s a nice thought, but all humans, including highly intelligent Christians, tend to be 1) stupid and 2) mean. Of course, they can be better. Will they be, though? That’s the question.
And aside from that, I would like to ask Hawking where the laws of physics sprang from. Perhaps the laws are self-creating, too? But that seems like circular reasoning to me. I was also a little stumped at his supposition that if there is a God, he must have necessarily created the universe merely for the pleasure of mankind.
I’m not saying there are not stupid Christians out there, there of course are, and I’m not saying they never post on blogs, they do , but I really believe (or maybe its hope) that many of the “Christian” posters are actually non-Christian’s, posting as Christian’s, to make us look stupider.
I have seen this trend on democrat/republican political sites frequently. The proverbial “Billy Bob” from Mississippi dropping the N word in response to every post is usually a dead giveaway for a plant.
It’s another instance of don’t believe everything you read, especially in the comments section of a blog post. But then again, how can you believe me 🙂
Mark, I agree with your point about gravity. And I have more problems with every other so-called argument listed in the article about Hawking’s book. None of them were arguments. They were unsubstantiated opinions based on random observations of unconnected facts. My choice is not to argue with someone who hasn’t made an argument worth addressing, whether he is atheist or Christian.
I think a lot of Christians are just tired of the intellectual attacks on their beliefs. And so they’ve fallen back on pure faith. Nothing stupid about that. They won’t convince any atheists, but as a man who has studied apologetics and debated many atheists, neither will most intellectual responses.
I think Christians have made a brilliant case for what they believe, and it’s all laid out in books, on forums, and in online articles, available for any atheist willing to listen. We’ve made our stand. Now we’re just tired of arguing. So yeah, some people said some things that might not make a good argument, but they make a good point: “We’ll believe, we’ll have faith, no matter what you throw at us. We’re done arguing.” And as a Christian, I’ve got to respect that, even if it’s not what I myself might say.
Besides, to an atheist’s assertion that somehow something finite came from nothing, a simple reply of “Nope,” seems at least on the same intellectual level. Just sayin’. . .
I hear you, Seeker. Most Christians and atheists are not going to change each others minds. And you’re right, many “Christians have made a brilliant case for what they believe.” However, I don’t think it’s smart to resort to cliches and overly simplistic answers because “we’re just tired of arguing.” For two reasons. First, we need to know WHY we believe and be able to articulate that. Too many Christians use the simplistic answers as a way to avoid the necessary disciplines for a strong defense of the faith. Second, there are still “listeners” in that middle ground who need convincing. Appreciate your comments!
I agree that we need to know why we believe, I think this is why most younger Christians don’t survive college. And that the few seekers we have out there might be listening in, and we should present our case appropriately.
I’m not saying these people did a particularly smart thing, but I’m not ready to chastise them either. They’re human. They’re tired. They’re irritated that people keep treating them, in spite of their better arguments, like they’re silly and superstitious. I can relate to this frustration. I know sometimes I too want to say, “The truth is the truth, and that truth is God. Take it or leave it.” Because of this, I can’t criticize them.
What I WILL do, is work twice as hard at presenting my own case for Christianity.
As for the Christians who actually don’t know why they believe. Well, that’s what I’m here for. I know why I believe. And every Christian unsure of why they believe I take the time to talk to. Ultimately, the education of our fellow Christians falls to us. We’re a family, after all. So, instead of chastising these people, I suggest we explain kindly what a proper response might be.
All that said, thanks for replying. Been following your blog for quite some time now and find it thoroughly enjoyable. 🙂
I will be interested to see what his book actually says. We all know that the media LOVES to stir up a firestorm, and the impression they are giving is that Hawking is proclaiming “God doesn’t exist! And I can prove it!” I haven’t seen that. What I’ve seen is that he said that the concept of God is “not necessary” with these new discoveries. There is a difference.
I have been reading “A Brief History of Time,” and in that book Stephen admirably (even though he was reportedly an agnostic even at that time) allows for the existence of a God, in his discussions. I will be interested to see what this new book actually says.
As far as the issue of gravity, as a friend said to me today, “Maybe he’s saying that, if gravity works but shouldn’t, and quantum mechanics work but shouldn’t, maybe chaos which shouldn’t be able to create, can create.”
I follow Hawking on Twitter, but so far he hasn’t weighed in on this debate. He’s probably enjoying the publicity. 🙂
Mike, I think Seeker makes a good point, though I suspect he is giving too much credit to some of those commenting. But I also don’t think they were probably plants as someone else suggested.
Human nature, being what it is, makes me think that some of those people are Christians, or certainly believe themselves to be Christians, and they haven’t taken the time to think about why they believe Genesis or the rest of the Bible.
But keep in mind that human nature issue. I think you’ve given atheists too much credit. In July 2007 the Washington Post ran an article about Wayne Batson’s Christian fantasy. Unfortunately the comments apparently aren’t archived or you’d see the pages (literally) of anti-Christian comments, many a (barely) altered form of the Bible is fantasy enough. Christians don’t need to write more fantasy.
Those responses didn’t address the veracity of the Bible or say anything meaningful about the topic. They were poor expressions of a bias.
Yes, atheists do that just as quickly and thoughtlessly as Christians.
Becky
Yes, as Rebecca says, atheists are just as biased as Christians. Read Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.” It’s 450 pages of “nyah, nyah, nyah” and name calling. The fact is, there are two world views. And both sides look at the facts and see them as fitting their side.
I, personally, grew up in a Christian home. Then became rebellious and about as un-Christian in behavior as can be. When my wild streak began to calm, I decided to go back to college–barely clinging to the tattered remains of my Christian upbringing. I earned a BS in Biology, Magna Cum Laude. EVERYTHING I studied was saturated with evolutionary thought. But it didn’t add up to me.
Some time after college, I went through a more serious crisis of belief. I was on the verge of ending my faith in God. I prayed one, final, prayer for PROOF that He exists.
Nothing.
But I couldn’t drop my faith so easily. I decided I would just have to believe without proof. Shortly after coming to that realization, I discovered the book “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel. And for two years, I read every book on Creation science I could get my hands on.
I can now say I have thoroughly researched both sides, am armed with tons of what I consider solid evidence for Creation, and still do NOT argue with atheists about the topic. Why? Most have what *they* consider solid evidence for their beliefs. And it’s been my experience they just want to try and prove me to be another “stupid Christian.” For each piece of evidence I present, they counter. Sometimes it’s with things I know are no longer even accepted in the secular science realm, but they don’t care. They just want a fight.
I refuse to fight for the sake of fighting. But I get so TIRED of being treated like a bumpkin who “just doesn’t know any better.” Despite a degree in science from a secular university. Honestly.
I refuse to fight for the sake of fighting. But I get so TIRED of being treated like a bumpkin who “just doesn’t know any better.” Despite a degree in science from a secular university. Honestly.
Ouch. I bet that’s frustrating. (No sarcasm, promise.) Karen Hancock really tried to dig into that in The Enclave (fiction, but she also has a biology degree, I think).
At any rate, hat’s off, for what it’s worth. Just…felt I should say that.
While I’m on this Planting kick (see my comment above), you should check out his “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism”. He states that if evolution and naturalism are both true propositions, the likelihood that humans end up with reliable cognitive capacity is very low. Therefore, taking both propositions as true is almost completely self-defeating.
You can read it here:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/an_evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism.pdf
End rant, eh? 0=)
I’ll be honest and admit I’m probably about as unable to see the possibility of matter existing on its own as some atheists are able to see anything supernatural possible. Frankly, the idea that unalterable laws of nature had to be broken to exist (no matter how you look at the First Cause of the cosmos and all subsequent ones) doesn’t make sense. Matter can’t be created or destroyed? Okay…so how did it get here? Life can’t arise from non-life? Okay, how did it get here? And so on.
I’ll go on a limb and guess that the idea is that Christians have some serious theology to consider if other worlds exist with other human populations. (Lewis’ Space Trilogy explores this idea.) Can/should a population on Mars who is not descended from Adam be held responsible for Adam’s sin? Jesus died once, so what does it mean if life exists on other planets? (I’m not saying Hawkings believes this; I know little about him and am simply offering some benefit of the doubt. However, those are theology questions, not scientific ones. )
I love how they use “science” as their foundation. Athiests and particularly global warming hoaxers haven’t used science to “prove” anything for a long, long time. Actually since the beginning of time as we know it. They just make up new names for spiritual implications and create an alternative to the spiritual reality labeling it with a new scientific sounding name.
Well, because no matter how hard you try to be unbiased, everything that makes up who you are and what you believe affects your perspective of the world. I, as I said, cannot fathom the universe without a Creator. For whatever reason, some people can’t fathom the universe with one–usually because they’ve been presented with a skewed understanding of who said Creator might be.
Besides, to an atheist’s assertion that somehow something finite came from nothing, a simple reply of “Nope,” seems at least on the same intellectual level. Just sayin’. . .
If you’re offering the short version, anyway. But trying to explain why 2+2=4 and not 5 can be maddening to someone who won’t accept a simple “No, it’s not 5.”
At any rate. You’re braver than me, Mike. I’d have been too afraid to click the comment button.
Thanks, Kaci. I’ll have to check out Karen Hancock’s book.
It’s also much different witnessing to science types than say your average non-believer or those of different religions. They at least allow for an honest debate. The science community has defined the rules of the debating with them in such a way to always exclude God. Anytime you try to invoke God or even an unnamed creator, no matter how scientific the argument, they call you a wacko and kick you out of the conversation.
How do you debate/argue/witness to someone who won’t listen? Who hides behind a scientific method as if the method was defined by the universe and not man?
This is why some resort to childish foot stomping with them. It’s on their level.
Well, in the end, as far as I can tell…people respond more gently to people they know, trust, and respect. Sometimes, it may actually be better to withhold your position on creation (like I do with my denominational affiliation and my political views) until you’re both in a position where you can comfortably engage. So, no, I wouldn’t expect these guys to really listen to me – some chick they don’t know from Adam. But I might hope – even pray – someone turns up with whom they can dialogue without the vitriol.
Because vitriol just looks nasty. I don’t care who you are.
A couple points…. First, we (Christians) end up sounding like dummies when we get “not-so-intelligent” Christians trying to debate with intelligent atheists. And there’s a couple reasons this happens too often….
For one thing, all Christians are called to defend our faith, whether we line up with Hawking or Forrest Gump on the intelligence scale. A lot of really nice people of faith will stand up for Jesus, but they aren’t necessarily well equipped to join the debate team. On the other hand, you don’t get “not-so-intelligent” atheists debating, because there really aren’t any stupid atheists. I’m only including “professing” atheists (i.e., those that have thought through why they don’t believe) in this category: there are plenty of stupid people that live as if there is no God, but they wouldn’t call themselves atheists or get into a debate about whether God exists. Now, I suspect I’d get along better with Forrest Gump as my friend and co-laborer in Christ than Hawking, but if they had a debate it wouldn’t sway the audience when Forrest would say “well, I may be not be a smart man, but I know what God is….”
The other area where we Christians cripple ourselves is that we don’t even have a consensus about what we really believe when it comes to creation (or hell, or communion/the Lord’s supper, or a myriad of other issues.) Some creationists that believe in the 6 twenty-four hour days of creation will go so far as to say that those that believe in the Gap theory and an “old creation” aren’t really creationists?!?! United we stand, divided we fall… and we’re falling folks.
Physicists have been looking for a “unified theory” that ties the various physical laws together. As Christians, we will be better prepared to defend our faith and our views on scientific and other issues when we develop a reconciled viewpoint — a “unified theory” that reconciles the interpretation of Biblical passages with scientific & social theories that already make sense to the rest of the world. If the Bible is the inspired Word of God (and I believe it is), there out to be an interpretation of scripture that makes sense and doesn’t disagree with scientific “facts” that have been discovered (and proved… not just theorized). I’m not saying to interpret the Bible so we make God in our image (as some might accuse us of doing), but I am saying to adjust the church’s “paradigm” so that we don’t raise Christians that look like Forrest Gump to the world.
If I remember correctly, Hawking ended “A Brief History of Time” with the assertion that once we discovered a grand unified theory, we would understand the mind of God.
Sounds like Hawking has fallen in with Dawkins who asserts you can’t be a scientist AND believe in God. Dawkins labeled all believers “delusional” in his last book, thus alienating non-believers from the scientific clique. Dawkins dropped the ultimatum: Forget God, or forget science.
Now we know which camp Hawking landed. Maybe he will someday return as a prodigal son.
Unlike Dan, I don’t think professing Christians who pop off with a pithy phrase are trying to argue with atheists. It’s a way of dismissing the person and their beliefs as irrelevant, I think.
And non-Christians—atheists included—do the exact same thing. (See for example the first comment to this post.) I’m not saying that condones believers answering in this way, but I do object to the idea that atheists are smarter or more prepared or better at presenting their beliefs. It all depends on which atheists and which Christians.
Becky
Hey Becky –
I think we’re closer to being “on the same page” than you thought after reading my first post. I agree with you that many Christians who use the pithy responses are just “dismissing the person and their beliefs as irrelevant”. And I also think you hit the nail on the head as to why they do that in your earlier post — “those people are Christians…. and they haven’t taken the time to think about why they believe Genesis or the rest of the Bible.”
And I certainly wasn’t saying non-Christians are smarter than Christians overall, and they are just as likely to use the pithy comments as Christians are. Where I was making a distinction was saying that those that actually call themselves “atheists” for the most part have thought through a reason why they don’t believe (so they have some intelligence.) Those non-Christians that fall into the category of “haven’t taken the time to think about why” they don’t believe are going to be just as likely to shoot off the pithy comments as the Christians that haven’t thought out their beliefs. In fact, I’d guess that the uneducated on both sides of the debate are the most likely to throw out catch phrases they’ve learned from those that really know the issues (kind of like when you hear a 10-year old spouting about politics, and you know they are just parroting what they’ve heard their parents say.)
Quoting Jason Black above:
“1. The law of gravitation, when expressed within the framework of string theory (something else Hawking referenced in his announcement) has a mathematical form of such-and-such.
“2. String theory itself is a mathematical interpretation of how the universe is theorized to operate.
“3. Something about the way the math of string theory gravity interacts between the math of string theory generally provides a mechanism by which something (the universe) could come from nothing: spontaneous creation.”
This is clear, succinct and nicely summarizes for a science-educated (BS, not MS or PhD) biologist/general scientist what Hawking has been saying for years.
It’s the physics take on the biologist’s response to spontaneous generation (also: abiogenesis or biopoesis) of life — which has been attempted repeatedly since the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952. Basic chemicals mixed under primeval Earth conditions produced 22 amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins and other compounds necessary for life. The discussion attendant on this process is long, technical and closely watched but in the end has a single conclusion: “no one has yet synthesized a ‘protocell’ using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life”.
Science is a discipline that demands repeated experiments that reach the same result no matter who does them or where they are performed. I have no doubt that Stephen Hawking believes that “string theory gravity interacts between the math of string theory” and provides a mechanism for “spontaneous creation” — but until he (or anyone) can provide (an) repeatable experiment(s) by anyone with the equipment and that experiment gives the same result each time, then no matter how smart He is, He is still offering up his opinion and hasn’t produced evidence to support his assertion. Unless Hawking can spontaneously create a universe, the he is currently paused at the stage prior to the Miller-Urey experiment of 1952…
I think a good place to start is subscribing to ICR’s free Acts and Facts magazine. Science does NOT disprove the Bible–it actually proves it. Science is a rigged game my friends: anyone who says anything against evolution (even if he himself is an atheist) is labeled ‘religious fanatic’ and is ignored.
Of course, science can’t ‘prove’ something that already happened–but you know what I mean.
I take it you’re not a presuppositional apoletics guy.