Today's (Sept. 2) edition of The Times has just published an extract from physicist Stephen Hawking's new book The Grand Design which reveals Hawking’s assertion that modern physics leaves no role for God in the creation of the Universe. Professor Hawking is arguably the UK's pre-eminent physicist and best-known living scientist.
If you want to read the extract, it's published behind a firewall requiring the reader to pay £1 to the Rupert Murdoch-owned paper. Fortunately, much about it is available from other sources.
Here is some of Hannah Devlin's (science writer for The Times) description of Hawking's argument:
Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.
Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology, Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.
In his forthcoming book, an extract from which is published exclusively in Eureka, published today with The Times, Professor Hawking sets out to answer the question: “Did the Universe need a creator?” The answer he gives is a resounding “no”.
Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says.
“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,” he writes.
“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going,” he finds.
Stephen Hawking's thesis is all the more powerful not just because of his scientific eminence, but also because he's not noted for polemics against religion. As Ruth Gledhill, The Times religion correspondant puts it:
When it comes to religion, Stephen Hawking is the voice of reason. Not for him the polemical style that has propelled Richard Dawkins to the fore of national consciousness in the God debates. His argument is likely in the long term to be more dangerous to religion because it is more measured than The God Delusion.
Hawking's position on the creation of the universe is hardly new in scientific reasoning though. It was most famously foreshadowed in an answer French mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) gave Napoleon Bonaparte when he remarked, "Monsieur Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator."
"Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là," Laplace replied.
("I had no need of that hypothesis")
***
If you enjoy my articles, you can click on "subscribe" at the top of the page and you'll receive notice when new ones are published.
Comments
Of all the scientists who's words creationists have perverted over time (to try to make them appear to say that they believed in god) they should have avoided Stephen's, considering he's still alive to contradict their quote mining attempts.
It is good that he's getting his official position out there like this. Unfortunately the big bang theory is argued against just as strongly by creationists as evolution theory.
The reason creationists have had so many opportunities to attack science is because of the way science works. When new ideas are brought out, others in the field raise criticisms. This is what makes science strong, but creationists grab onto the controversy and claim that there are weaknesses in the new idea and imply or out right state the idea is therefore wrong. Rational discussions of disputed points in evolutionary theory are used as weapons by creationists. Likewise, different points of view on the big bang are touted as fatal weaknesses. If only there were some testable ideas in "creation science" so there could be discussable differences.
You'll see my response in short order. And for the record: I could have predict this of Hawking, since he made his absurdly neurotic pronouncement that humanity would actually have good reason to fear an extraterrestrial invasion.
If you're going to hold that against him Terry, you'll also need to hold against him what he wrote in his 1988 book, "A Brief History of Time" as well:
"If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
Of course, as Hawking has repeated explained, that usage of "god" was as a metaphor.
And Terry's response was:
"I disagree!"
Contrary to Terry's claim of absurdity, Hawking has pointed out how encounters between different civilizations have not turned out well for the less-advanced side. Which would be us. Terry is invited to defend his claim that such a view is "absurd."
Hurl-butt's response is simple: ET's cannot exist, much less be more advance, since the entire Universe is little more than 6,000 years old.
YEC's have simple answers from a simplistic worldview
Thanks for the update. I'm ashamed. About 6 years ago, I purchased Stephen Hawking's edition of GOD created the integers. It's a 1200 page college text that tells about the 17 greatest mathematicians from Euclid to Turing: 325 BC to 1954, some 2250 years of progressive math developments, the major formulas and their proofs. I bought the book because of the word God in the title. I studied the pages for over a year, enjoying the historical and creative genius of each successive giant of the science. And all that effort, now, I learn the truth: God created the integers, but he failed to create the world and man and the universe. But there is still hope. My memory serves me that scripture says, He who hath made the ear, how shall He not also hear? In the same token, He who hath made the mind, how shall He not also think? -- Like God has hidden Himself from any man who might produce his creative genius on his own until he comes to the end of himself. Then God has infinite patience to wait for a smart man to realize just how small he is before Him. http://www.examiner.com/church-and-state-2-in-san-francisco/charles-bund...
Again... Hawking has consistently made clear throughout the years that he uses "God" as a metaphor, not as a deity.
Hawking comment was by me...
good article but a hypothesis is still a hypothesis and Hawkings rendition is still a hypothesis
Which makes it infinitely more scientific than creationism.
Thank god no-one's yet said that the Big Bang is "only" a theory...
Thats the good one but still arguable
I'd like to read Mr. Hawking's account of how the law of gravity came to be.
Then read his books. You might learn something.
If you propose an alternative, I'd like to read your account of how the law of gravity came to be. Scientific, I hope?
Hawking would probably point you to Sir Isaac Newton, who presented the law of gravity in his 1686 work "The Principia." (That may not be what you meant, but that is what you asked.)
What would take him so long to state the obvious?
Our Esteemed Editor offered to respondent Terry Hurlbut this salient rejoinder of choice, compliments Hawking: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God."
Nonsense!
ANTS attempting contemplation of their sandy universe!
It's not going to happen!
Look, this whole construct we live in is a puzzle palace placed within a puzzle palace!
Why is this FACT not evident to all on it's face?
If belief in apparent absurdities is necessary to please that which created all that is, and to get us the pass-on, then WHY ARGUE? Where's the beef?
All this energy and time, and personal fussing put to the drudge of DENIAL and ACCREDITING to mere, pathetic, stinking human self! What a waste!
And . . . Hawking has ONE BIG AXE to grind with his Maker. Believe it!
I would not grant him any pre-condition of dispassionateness, when it comes to commenting on God-related subjects. Good judges recuse themselves where and when vitally self-interested, it being 'the appearance' of the thing after all, you know.
In contemplation, as-summed, all this just STAGGERS to pieces the rational mind.
But (and) . . . our EE once again scores a home run! Good subject, meat and bone for knawing. We all look giddily-forward to the next ones. (If I may dare say that for them?)
More fecal throwing from the Theocratic Despot, I see.
Hawking has NO 'axe to grind' - you don't get pissed off at a deity you do not believe exists. Believe it!
Now if you want to build your life believing in "apparent absurdities," no one is likely to stop you. No one even really cares that you have such a self-loathing and hatred of humanity in general - your miserable existence is YOUR choice.
The only argument you get is when you attempt to force those beliefs on rational, thinking individuals - who refuse to embrace your blatant stupidity.
On the theme of something came from nothing. A story springs from nothing, at least nothing but the author's brain. Maybe mathematics, a theory of everything also springs from a simple calculus formula, too?
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!