So, as part of the publicity for Prof Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design, an excerpt has been released that Prof Hawking does not believe God is necessary for the Universe’s existence (BBC).
The first thing to say is this was excellent publicity for the book! I just watched it as one of the main headlines on the national news. It was basically treated as though it was a formal proof.
OTOH they described it as Hawking “changing his mind” and now saying that god is not necessary. They made it sound like he was a believer who has now become an atheist; I don’t think this is true.
The second thing is the opinion itself. A released quote is:
This, in itself, is a weak argument it seems to me. If it was valid to invoke God to fill the gap at the beginning of the big bang, it’s at least as valid to invoke god to explain where the laws come from. Or as invalid.
Though I don’t know the physics he’s advancing yet, I doubt that the philosophical arguments have been advanced here.
btw I didn’t think Hawking’s reasoning on alien races was sound either. Come on Hawking, you’re starting to drop the ball.
Aren’t something like 75% of cosmologists and physicists atheists, with a good percentage of the remainder agnostic? That would make this…well, not all that much of a surprise.
I just had an old friend from High School post this…
“If Dr. Hawkings is correct and science does not need God, why does Schrodinger’s cat always die, which suggests that some undefined observer interferes with each and every instance of the experiment. If not God, then who else is interfering in the experiment? Who else would be interested in the outcome of the cat? And if God is watching, then he exists, and His watching is not mere frivolity.”
Sigh. I’m afraid I may have to hide him.
He at one point hid his atheism and expressed some support for religion, both to avoid offending his first wife and out of fear of the hatred of believers. He came out as a long time atheist a while back.
Aye. The title of the thread was copied from the title of the linked article (pretty much). Whereas the text is my paraphrasing the text of the news article.
As to what the Professor is saying, I’m not sure. But it doesn’t seem to have the significance that the news stories have implied or as much as Hawking himself (allegedly) believes.
fwiw, I’m an atheist. I have no axe to grind here, I just don’t think it adds up to much and I don’t know why it got so much press attention.
Listening to some of Hawkins I just know he is looking at God right in the eye but just not seeing him, really very sad, but if god opens his eyes, WOW that would be great.
I’ll admit, I’m curious. Had he not said that bit about gravity, I might have simply ignored the new book. It’s just such a non sequitur (or so it seems to me) that it’s gotten me curious to see what he’s going on about…
Every time, after I read a “serious” discussion on the subject of existence of some supreme, powerful and all-that-other stuff capable entity A.K.A. God, I was always left flabbergasted at how out of synch such discussions are.
In other words, if one believes, then there is no knowledge to speak of. Believers are not in pursuit of elusive concept known as knowledge but subjugation of other people to their shared belief. People who pursue the knowledge do not employ brain capability to believe but rather brain’s capability to think.
So, when a believer questions a person who pursues the knowledge, believer is appealing to his/her capability to believe. Likewise, when a person who pursues the knowledge questions believer, a person who pursues the knowledge is appealing to his/her capability to think.
I don’t have a preference or claim which one of the human brain’s capabilities is more important but these are not compatible starting points for any meaningful discussion. Quite contrary, any discussion would only lead to more confusion and faux philosophical disagreements. Also, very quickly these discussions go off the rails exactly because of the widely dissonant starting points; i.e. “God created the Universe. Ok, then, who created God?” or “God is not necessary for Universe to be created. Ok, then, why does a horse have four legs and a tail?”.
These are good points. I’d never noticed but it’s true that the two sides are arguing with completely different notions of what constitutes a good argument.
I would say that the brain’s capacity to believe is a deep flaw.
For most of human history, human advance has crept along slowly, constantly diverted by superstition, doctrine/authority and belief.
Then humans invented science and our progress has rocketed along since then. But still we have not exorcised our demons.
I don’t think these examples work well though. About the only thing those two questions have in common is that they are simply-worded.
The former touches on a significant philosophical problem. The latter doesn’t hint at any structured argument and is trivially answered.
But is Hawking saying that a law of gravity is something that does necessarily exist without a universe, and is he implying that gravity causes the universe?
I ask because one definition of God is simply an uncaused first cause of the universe. By this definition, Hawking has affirmed the existence of God, rather than declaring God redundant.
Any dopers more knowledgeable in physics, metaphysics, or theology feel free to tell me what’s wrong with my thinking here.
