Stephen Hawking is the closest thing to a rock star as there is in the scientific community, considered by many to be a contemporary version of Albert Einstein. Hawking is famous for developing theories with Roger Penrose that attempt to mathematically describe singularities in the theory of relativity, as well as quantum gravity in the context of black holes. He helped popularize science through his book A Brief History of Time.
Hawking is known to suffer from amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known commonly as Lou Gehrig's disease. In spite of near complete paralysis due to his infirmity, he is renowned worldwide as the leading theoretical physicist in the modern era.
As usual, the Roswell Public Library proved to be a treasure trove of information. Intrigued to learn more about this fascinating man, one of his books selected in my most recent visit had the rather audacious title of The Illustrated Theory of Everything. It turned out the book contained a couple of surprises.
The theories recently covered in Paul Davies' book The Goldilocks Enigma were similarly discussed in Hawking's book, which could easily be described as short and to the point given its length. In reality very little new ground was covered. Another way to put it is that Hawking concurred with what Davies wrote about the hot Big Bang origin of the universe.
What Hawking did bring to the table that was more than a little surprising was an obvious willingness to entertain the possibility of God's involvement in the creation of the universe.
Hawking writes "One can imagine that God created the universe at literally any time in the past. On the other hand, if the universe is expanding, there may be physical reasons why there had to be a beginning. One could still believe that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang. He could even have created it at a later time in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang. But it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when He might have carried out his job." (p11)
When one gets past wondering if Hawking was a fan of Douglas Adams and "borrowed" the idea of faked creation with the famous scene involving Slartibartfast and his claim to have "placed" dinosaur bones in the fossil record as a comic aside, the reader realizes that Hawking is serious in his suggestion that creation could have been faked by its creator.
Later on page 72 Hawking said "If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size."
He was acknowledging the extraordinary improbability that the Goldilocks enigma of our "just right" universe is a fact. Given the odds against it, we should not be here.
More telling, Hawking also wrote "The initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings just like us."
In the spirit of full disclosure and to preempt arguments that the Atlanta Creationism Examiner "cherry picks" quotes, the emphasis in italics above was added. The remainder of the quote was selected by Hawking himself for emphasis and treated as a "pull quote" highlighted in the margins. Hawking clearly wanted to call to the reader's attention to the fact the existence of a universe that supports life is ridiculously unlikely to have happened by chance.
Hawking seems to vacillate on whether or not God was involved in the Big Bang. Immediately after the above remarks, he launched into an explanation of Alan Guth's theory of inflation "to avoid the difficulty of the very early stages of the hot big bang model" as an attempt to rationally explain how the hot big bang (for which we have astronomic evidence in the form of red shift observation using the Hubble telescope) could result in the present universe.
Yet later on page 87, Hawking's quote in the margin reads "The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe." In the body of the text he adds "With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws. He does not seem to intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started. It would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning that was a singularity, one could suppose that it was created by an outside agency."
Hawking spent the following chapter on the "arrow of time" discussed in an earlier article on Sean Carroll's work, asking the same provocative question "Why do we remember the past but not the future?"
As an aside, his question begs for a followup question: how do people like Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce appear to defy the arrow of time and seem to have the ability to remember the future? Is the arrow of time really fixed in one direction?
Regarding Stephen Hawking, the question remains: has this great scientist developed some form of religious belief in God?
His summary paragraph to end The Illustrated Theory of Everything leads with an observation: "Up until now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why--the philosophers--have not been able to keep up with the advancement of scientific theories."
Therein lies the problem with scientific theory and for that very reason Hybrid Theory was written as an attempt to reconcile scientific theory with the challenge of the existential questions, the foremost of which is, "Why are we here?"
Hawking concludes "if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle, not just [to] a few scientists. Then we can all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exists. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know the mind of God."
Those are the last words to close his book, and a most fitting way to conclude this article.
Comments
At most, Hawking would be describing a Deist interpretation: a deity lit the fuse and let things go from there.
Based on his myriad other writings and speeches, I doubt Hawking even holds Deist views, though.
That's been my take on his writings.
Since "before the Big Bang" is a meaningless expression, what came "before the Big Bang" is outside the realm of scientific discourse - at least until someone can make the case there WAS a "before."
I also got the impression of 'agnostic' after reading his books and thought "God" was used metaphorically.
John, you do realise that to arbitrarily delete comments you disagree with rather than address them is dishonest don't you?
Interesting definition of the word dishonest. I do not condone the abuse of animals nor find insinuations of it amusing, so deleting your offensive comment was hardly arbitrary or capricious. It was your only comment I intentionally deleted up to this point.
I give a tremendous amount of leeway in comments, but not to be called a liar. Blackout was given a number of opportunities to be civil and tone down the rhetoric but refused to do so. When he apologizes and follows that simple guideline, he can post again. I know this sounds rough, but it is the truth when I say I am responsible for and control the content on this site.
If you want to keep posting comments, you'll have to abide by my rules. To this point the only rule has been if you call me a liar, you'd better be able to back it up with substantial proof. Saying my opinion is a lie is in fact a dissenting opinion and not by default the truth.
And, "You can't handle the truth!" (thanks for the line Jack Nicholson.)
Why do you all think God is so lazy?
"Lit the fuse and let things go from there." So is now the argument maybe there is a God but He doesn't really do anything?
I find it interesting how Hawking can write the word "God" literally dozens of times in his book on the "theory of everything" which is in and of itself ridiculously audacious, yet he does refer to God over and over. But now you say he doesn't really mean "God" by saying God.
I love you people. I read these books and then when I quote from them, you tell me they don't mean what they say but you haven't read it-you're basing it on lectures you heard.
Maybe the guy changed his mind. I don't know, and I too thought he was an atheist or agnostic. Then I read his book and his words, but they don't mean anything or at least not what they say in black and white. Grey was the intended color.
Good grief.
So Nick,
just to be crystal clear about deleting comments and dishonesty, NO. It is not dishonest to delete a comment when it jokes about killing an innocent creature, nor do I have to allow or respond to accusations of being a liar by someone who lacks the courage to identify himself or state his credentials for judging my education, intellect, comprehension of basic textbook biology, or writing for that matter.
As much as I value each and everyone who reads my columns, if I alienate or even lose a reader or two because I refuse to engage in petulant taunts but instead remove them from my site, I'm willing to take that risk.
I'm not looking for excuses to ban people or censor, but I do reserve the right to deem certain comments inappropriate and delete them without responding.
If you want more of your comments deleted, you can continue the thread of insisting it is dishonest for me to delete your comments.
The issue creates a sort of Catch-22 for you, if you will.
Considering Hawking is one of the leading scientists filling in the details of how the Big Bang created the conditions that eventually led to the current universe - and life - "lit the fuse" is an exceedingly apt description.
See, a Deist has no problem with the idea that some supernatural entity somehow caused the Big Bang - and an honest scientist will admit that there is no way to disprove that hypothesis at present - it simply is outside the province of the scientific method.
Now, I personally do not believe Hawking is even a Deist, having read much of his writings; I accept his statements that the use of 'god' is more metaphorical.
I was referring to the deletion of Blackout's comments, not mine.
Dr. Hawking was asked specifically about his "mind of god" comment at a physics conference a couple of years ago. In response, he said, "I do not believe in a personal God," and went on to explain that he finds the term "god" useful as a metaphor in explaining his ideas. Dr. Hawking's close colleagues and even his (now ex-)wife have stated that Dr. Hawking is in fact, an atheist. Personally, I think that it is difficult to cage in a mind as power and unique as Dr. Hawking, and am satisfied with his own assertion that he is "not religious in the normal sense."
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. John has deleted this comment multiple times. What's the matter, John? Are you uncomfortable with the fact that Dr. Hawking has directly addressed this dishonest misrepresentation of his beliefs?
Understand, that even the greatest intellectually gifted scientist can make mistakes..
Hawking is a man of science, meaning he is someone who will not take an absolutist position on just about everything in the universe, including God. How could he claim to be a scientist when, in the absence of any way to prove or disprove (at this time) the existence of God, he made a claim one way or the other.
He would cease to be Stephen Hawking.
But, for all the believers out there, do not fight the scientists, for they one day may be the very people who prove, by direct or indirect observation, the existence of God.
Would be ironic the very people persecuted for so long by the church ended up proving it right.
goanamarcus, I think you hit the nail on the head with this repsonse.
Gee...Golly...Gosh...I didn't hear Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, or Charles Darwin use the word God "metaphorically"...
you peopple are like rats in mazes with no where to go. Every time a scientist makes a reference to God you put forth a pathetically, impotent, argument on how the scientist didn't
really mean it. I understand your frustration...Einstien
believed in God (minimally Spinoza's God, but God nonetheless)
Newton believed in God(BIG TIME) Galileo believed, scores of Oxford intellectuals like C.S. Lewis believed, the world's most renowned philosopher Anthony Flew now believes in God....etc, etc, etc, . The list goes on and on...and you prevaricating, frustrated atheists just can't handle it so you lower yourselves to little canard-creating little mice, who literally put words in people's mouths. FLASH..NEWS BULLETIN...FYI...On Larry King Live, Stephen Hawking clearly stated THAT THERE HAD TO BE A GOD....AND HE DIND'T USE THE WORD METAPHOR!!!!!
To criticize Hawking's belief in a miraculous creator as something contrary to rational science is foolish and obstinate ignorance. Any profound scientist must consider the possibility that Earth and the gravitational accessories which stabilize it originated from the endeavors of a majestic influence such as that of the god/gods acknowledged by various religions because Earth is a "gem in the rough" of our solar system. Earth is too impossibly intricate to denounce that it's genesis was the work of "god magnitude" beings. Rhetorical Question: Does Steven Hawking agree with the Roman-Catholic portrayal of the creator? Answer: Probably Not... Furthermore, a validation of the proposition that the universe is artificial is the bizzare alignment of the planets and their compositions. One could easily deduce that each planet, their moons, and the Sun were created becuase of the planets uniformity with one another in that each of them have moons or natural satellites.
All I know is that God exists and the simple fact of nature and space illustrates his power. Science does not make everything happen so perfect where life can exist on a planet such as Earth. God is real and has control over everything.
The Idea of God is too big for us to really grasp, even Hawkins claims if we find out the meaning of the universe we will know the mind of God. The idea of Understanding everything in the universe and when we started and where we are going, Scientifically has been troublesome for the brightest of minds, God could be a metaphor, but whats the metaphor, God is a supernatural being that created the universe, so how if when Hawkings claims of everything needing to be absolutely perfect, could something that is NOT a being do anything??????
Not logical to even people with commonsence, so the non personal idea of God is understanding that it really probably wasnt a man, woman, a humanly figure that has nothing better to do and just decided because he/she was bored would make a universe and SEE WHAT HAPPENS. What ever God IS, point is it is a supernatural being that we are completely incapable of knowing till we are faced with it, and even then this being is so pure that REALLY we might not be able to Personally face it. so good luck trying to tell yourself your the most intelligent life form in the Universe, pretty sad that your a spec of dust and your the only thing out there thats SMART. Probably think the moon is only a hop skip away too.
Just to let you know..... the book you are referencing to make your case was an unauthorized publication and IS NOT endorsed by Stephen Hawking. Do your homework. You people crack me up!
Just to be very clear, before heading back to the library...you are saying the book "The Illustrated History of Everything" was not endorsed or written by Stephen Hawking, though his name is listed as author of the book?
Can you provide a source of this tidbit of information? It's certainly news to me that you can publish a book under someone's name without their permission.
Hawking has also stated, very precisely, that "God" DID NOT create the universe. Do your research and you will be smarter human beings.
Shirley Maclaine in 1988 famously asked Stephen Hawking if he believed in God, and he said no. Hawking's one-time assistant, an observant Jew, also made it clear to a documentary crew that his boss did not believe in God. So why are so many believers unable to recognize a metaphor when they see one?
Saying that we may some day "know the mind of God" is a far cry from saying that the road to heaven is straight and narrow and that all who fail to accept Jesus as their personal savior will burn in hell for eternity.
Einstein had doubts about quantum mechanics and said, "God does not play dice with the universe". When his general theory of relativity predicted accurately that a solar eclipse would reveal a distant star that otherwise was hidden behind the sun, he was asked what would have happened had his theory been disproved. He replied, "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord, because my theory is correct".
Yet in his own writings he speaks of the "absurd egotism" required to believe one's soul survives one's death, and he has even harsher words for believers in general.
The mystery is why so many who try to prove that science and religion are converging (and what they are converging on, apparently, is religion) would use such feeble crumbs to support their point of view and feel it is convincing in any way.
God Made everything and made it prefect and was prefect until mankind disobeyed God and NOW HERE WE ALL ARE>....... But God (The living God) Gave us a wonder, beautiful world. One Day when I get to heaven he can tell me with assurance how he made the world ,the laws of nature,and everything else. Love you all and God be with you. May he speak to your a heart and I pray for total understanding.
TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for ENERGY or WAVE, both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, also Thawaf seven times circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during rituals of the Hajj (Abraham).
"A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME - From the Big Bang to Black Hole" by Stephen W. Hawking is the best scientific interpretation of AL QUR'AN by a non believer. It is also a “genuine bridge stone” for comprehensive study of Theology. Surprise, this paradox is a miracle and blessing in disguise as well. So, it should be very wise and challenging for Moslem scholars to verify my discovery.
NeoSUFI visionary strategic thinking.
It is amazing to me to that everyone seems to have such a on/off view of beleif. John I appreciated your article, because it opened up an aspect not discussed. From everything I have read, it is plain to understand that in practcie Hawking is an athiest and he has said specifically that he does not believe in a "personal god". He is smart though that he contends and struggles with how to interpret the Anthropic Principle (Goldilocks effect) and how to interpret the beginning of a finite universe. In doing this he discusses the possibilities, don't get me wrong, he doesn't really consider them in depth, but he doesn't dogmatically off hand dismiss them. I think context shows that not all of his uses of God are metaphorical, but also their use is not committing to belief, but acknowledging possibilities. So, at least in the writings quoted he is not dogmatically asserting athiesm, instead he is being a scientist and kicking around the possible theories. Since you have gotten so much flack on your article, I just want to say "Good Job" John
Very well thought out interpretation of what Mr. Hawking said, Wayne.
I have to interject something which may or may not have been addressed: but physics can only describe/confirm what is known and not speculated. You cannot achieve a sum from nothing, and judging by what Hawkings has identified - spontaneous creation is very possible. Mr. Hawkings does undoubtably have a great intellectual mind, but the belief of any sort of spontaneous creation ideas, leads down to the core of the chicken and egg argument. One cannot get something from nothing, no matter how hard it's debated. If there was only plasma at the start, that plasma had to originate from somewhere, period. 0+0 = 0
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!