20
back
5 / 06
Image of birds flying. Image of birds flying.

#226 Hawking’s Curious Objections to Divine Creation

August 14, 2011
Q

Last night, I watched over 2 hours of the Discovery Channel's new show "Curiosity" - they start off with a bang, the first episode takes on the biggest topic ever! "Did God Create the Universe?"

It was mainly "all Stephen Hawking, all the time" - essentially the program concluded "God did not create the universe and science has answered this question".

I have to say, had I seen this a few years ago, I would have been depressed, "WOW! THEStephen Hawking says science answered the question already and God doesn't exist. Now what does the Christian do?".

But thanks to work like yours and others, I watched this show practically yelling at the screen "that's not true! Quantum physics DOESN'T give you something from nothing! The QUANTUM VACUUM IS NOT NOTHING!". He never mentioned his own Hartle/Hawking model which involves "imaginary time" - the program always talked about an "infinite point" - the singularity. He talked about it as if it was a fact - which is fine by me. Nothing about multiverses either - which was surprising but that told me that the Many Worlds Hypothesis is really a radical theory that isn't supported by much of any data. Since it wasn't even in the show (one whose main purpose is to refute God as the creator of the universe), that tells me the multiverse isn't the "God killer" theory some would like to make it out to be. And nothing about the fine-tuning of gravity (gravity was highly touted by Hawking in the program as a major player in cosmology, which it is - but he never mentioned even Hawking's own observation that had gravity been infinitesimally different at the outside, the Big Bang would have collapsed on itself and we wouldn't be here).

I laughed when I heard Hawking say that the question "did God create the universe" doesn't even make sense because there was nothing before the Big Bang - and since there was no time, there couldn't be a God to create the Big Bang. It seems he is ignorant, or misinformed, about the concept of God and how God is seen as timeless (at least before creation). I find it sad such a brilliant scientist can be so ignorant about something so basic as to the concept of the timelessness of God - especially when his whole argument seems to be "because there was no time prior to the Big Bang, God couldn't have existed then either".

They did have a half-hour roundtable discussion after the initial 1 hour segment that I thought was really rather good. They had a Christian theologian, an atheist physicist and a deist physicist (the deist was Paul Davies - who actually called out Hawking for his misunderstanding of the concept of God and how God is timeless unlike what Hawking thinks - and it was here, for about 5 minutes, when multiverses were briefly discussed and Davies says that doesn't help the atheist either). I thought the discussion was great - the atheist stuck to his guns on scientism (which is when, of course, I thought of your reasons why scientism is false in your 1998 after-debate discussion with Peter Atkins), while I thought the theologian and deist had very good remarks, though I wish you were on the panel to go deeper in the discussion 😊

Anyway, that's my comment. Here's a question regarding this. This entire program hinged on the truth of scientism - it assumed that everything we know (or can know) can be found scientifically. One of your refutations to scientism is "you can't prove aesthetics, thus scientism is false". For example, you cannot prove something is beautiful or ugly via a scientific method.

However, isn't that question regarding aesthetics subjective and thus doesn't have a truth value either way and therefore science doesn't even claim to give you an answer? (Can it ever be objectively true or false that something is ugly?). And so, if something doesn't have an objective truth value, there is nothing for science to say here. This is different than verificationism (where, as I understand it, it is meaningless to even ask the question at all if it isn't verifiable or falsifiable in some way. Scientism here can be, "you can ask the question, but science doesn't claim to provide you the answer").

It is meaningful to ask "is this ugly?" but it is not for science to prove that and science never claims to be able to prove that. Science doesn't need to try to prove this since it is opinion, not objective truth. I believe something is ugly, you believe it is beautiful. That is opinion, not objective truth - thus the scientist says, "that's fine - science is not about proving opinions, it is only trying to find out objective truths".

Therefore, to say, "science can't prove athestics" doesn't refute scientism because scientism only wants to affirm that OBJECTIVE TRUTHS can be known through science, not subjective opinions - such as likes or dislikes.

Where am I going wrong in that line of thinking?

Thanks,

John

 

 

Dear Dr. Craig,

I was wondering if perhaps you had seen the television show entitled, "Did God Create the Universe" with Stephen Hawking, which aired on the Discovery Channel's "Curiosity" series last Sunday night (8/7/11), and the debate which followed. Hawking ultimately concluded that the universe was not created by God, based on the following three points:

1. THE UNIVERSE IS NOTHING, SO GOD CREATED NOTHING: In the universe there is an equal amount of positive energy and negative energy. From a mathematical perspective, these energies add up to zero, therefore if the universe is nothing, then God created nothing. This point is illustrated with the following analogy: A man with a shovel stands on flat ground and starts to build a mound of dirt. As he piles up the dirt, he also digs a hole. The mound and hole are equal to each other, and cancel each other out, ultimately equaling zero.

2. THERE ARE INSTANCES OF SOMETHING BEING CREATED FROM NOTHING OBSERVED IN NATURE, THEREFORE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSE TO HAVE BEEN CREATED FROM AND BY NOTHING: Scientists have observed that subatomic particles sometimes, without explanation, appear and disappear on their own. Therefore, the creation of something from nothing follows the laws of nature, and the idea of the big bang having started from nothing is plausible.

3. BEFORE THE BING BANG, THE UNIVERSE WAS A BLACK HOLE. TIME DOESN'T EXIST IN A BLACK HOLE, THEREFORE THERE WAS NO TIME FOR A GOD TO CREATE THE UNIVERSE.

Now, I'm a musician, and do not possess a degree in any field of science. However, after putting some thought into these 3 points that Hawking makes, I've come to some conclusions, and was wondering what your opinions might be on them:

1. THESE CONCLUSIONS SEEM TO CONTRADICT EACH OTHER: First Hawking sets out to prove that the universe is collectively nothing. He then shows that, according to recent scientific observations, that the creation of something from nothing in nature is possible, but then also states that the universe was something before the big bang!

2. If the universe is a mathematical zero, then there is nothing to create, not by God, nor nature, nor any other source that one can think of. I think this point is a ridiculous "cheap shot" because anyone can see that the universe is not nothing. A hole and a hill aren't nothing. Furthermore, Hawking seems to have forgotten some of the other elements in this analogy, like the man with the shovel (the creator) and the dirt from which he fashioned a hill and dug a whole. As far as I can see, there is no analogy in nature that can be used to express his point because one does not exist. The universe is not nothing, and you can't make something from nothing.

3. Isn't it safer to say that the reason behind the sudden appearance and disappearance of subatomic particles is unknown to science at this point in time, rather than to conclude that they just happen and add another law to the laws of nature? Since when have scientists stopped asking why? When it's convenient to help support their atheist agenda? I seem to recall in reading "The Case for Faith," that, in Darwin's time, people thought that maggots just appeared on meats left outside without explanation. Later on of course, it's been found that meats left outside were exposed to flies, which laid their eggs on it and maggots hatched out of them. I think the answer behind the strange appearance/disappearance of sub-atomic particles has yet to be discovered, and it is perhaps irresponsible to assume that they simply behave this way because they just do in order to win an argument.

4. Was there something, or nothing before the big bang? Hawking claims both in his show. By the time he gets to his 3rd main point, he's telling us that there was a black hole before the big bang. He describes the black hole as a place where time does not exist, therefore a Creator could not exist, nor could He create the universe. I believe that Hawking uses this black hole theory to eliminate God from the list of possible causes behind the creation of the universe, due to the black-hole's properties concerning time. However, Hawking also claims that a black hole is infinitely dense. So not only is a black hole something rather than nothing, it's an infinitely dense something. Therefore, this point contradicts his previous points, and also begs the question: if there was a black hole before the big bang, who or what created that black hole? Also, if we challenge this point from a religious perspective, we could say that God transcends time and space, and therefore could exist in a black hole if, in fact, that's what existed before the big bang. We could also say that, with God, all things are possible.

This show was immediately followed by a "debate" in which several scientists, both Christian and Atheist (and perhaps an agnostic) were in attendance. I found it disappointing that these scientists didn't seem prepared to debate any of Hawking's points. It seemed as if they were simply accepted as concrete facts. The point that Hawking did not address the origin of the laws of nature was brought up, however, the atheists simply replied that the origin would most certainly be discovered in the future. Ultimately, the Christian scientists did not debate Hawking's points, and many agreed that science and religion should be kept separate. The whole program seemed biased to me.

I think it would be wonderful to have someone like you expressing the Creationist view in a lucid and factually based manner on television. Atheism, in my opinion, holds far too much sway over young Americans these days, especially when their conclusions are doctored up in a well-produced and entertaining television show, with pretty animations dramatized by music resembling the score of the movie "A Beautiful Mind." When I was in junior high school, the study of evolution in my biology class persuaded me to become an atheist myself, so I know how convincing it can be. Had I been exposed to Christian apologetics at a younger age, perhaps that wouldn't have been the case. However, I'm glad, and proud of my new-found faith, and am always saddened by the sheer number of atheist young people that walk into my music studio.

Anyway, thank-you for taking the time to read my lengthy "question," and I look forward to your response should you feel inclined to respond.

Sincerely,

Marianna

Flag of United States. United States

Photo of Dr. Craig.

Dr. craig’s response


A

John and Marianna, I am so proud of you in the way you have responded to this program! Rather than being cowed by the authority of an eminent physicist like Stephen Hawking and acquiescing thoughtlessly to his philosophical and theological pronouncements, you have instead chosen to think critically about what he said, to weigh the arguments offered in support of his pronouncements, and to discern the fallacies in those arguments. Good for you! This is what Reasonable Faith is all about: to help equip Christians to think critically and intelligently about their faith and the challenges to it, so that you don’t need to come to me for answers but can provide them yourselves.

I wasn’t able to watch this program, but if you have accurately summarized Prof. Hawking’s arguments, then I can only conclude that he has sunk to an embarrassing new low of philosophical and theological argumentation. Let me say a brief word about the arguments as you have summarized them.

1. The universe is nothing, so God created nothing. I have heard this utterly inane argument on the lips of other anti-theistic scientists as well. The argument implies that Stephen Hawking himself does not exist, which is mad, since one’s own existence is obvious and indubitable. As you point out, Marianna, if taken seriously, Hawking’s claim is in contradiction to all the existential assertions he makes throughout the program.

The argument that nothing exists is based on a bookkeeping trick: if the positive energy of the universe and the negative energy of the universe exactly balance out, then the net energy of the universe is zero; therefore, nothing exists! This is like saying that if you go on a round trip journey in which the return leg retraces the outbound leg, then your net motion is zero; therefore you haven’t gone anywhere! Marianna, you’re absolutely correct that the illustration of the hole and the dirt pile actually proves the exact opposite of Hawking’s claim, for even though the volume of the dirt equals the volume of the hole, that in no way implies that the hole and the dirt pile do not exist (you might fall in the hole and break your leg or sit on the dirt pile)! In the case of the universe, you still need a cause to explain the origin of the positive and the negative energy in the first place, even if when summed together their net balance is zero.

2. There are instances of something’s being created from nothing observed in nature; therefore it is possible for the universe to have been created from and by nothing. John, you are absolutely correct that the quantum vacuum which spawns so-called virtual particles is not nothing. To characterize this sea of energy filling space as nothing is so egregious a misrepresentation that those who do so are guilty, I believe, of a deliberate distortion of science.

Marianna, you are also right to remind us that it is far from clear that there are not, in fact, deterministic causes of the appearance of virtual particles. Such behavior is indeterministic only on some interpretations of quantum physics, like the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation, but there are other interpretations of quantum physics which are thoroughly deterministic and are empirically equivalent to indeterministic interpretations, and no one knows which, if any, of these competing interpretations is correct. Naive realism about the Copenhagen Interpretation would be rash and unjustified.

Moreover, the primordial vacuum state out of which our visible universe may have emerged cannot, by Hawking’s own admission, be eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning, which seems to point to an ultramundane cause of the universe’s origin.

3. Before the Big Bang, the universe was a black hole. Time doesn't exist in a black hole; therefore there was no time for a god to create the universe. I’m rather shocked by both your reports that Hawking was apparently plumping for the standard Big Bang model (perhaps with an inflationary era) which features an initial cosmological singularity rather than for his own theory, which features a non-singular origin to spacetime. Let’s grant for the sake of argument that the singularity was a real physical state. The claim seems to be that since the initial cosmological singularity is a boundary point to spacetime rather than a point of spacetime, therefore there was no time at which God could have created the singularity.

But this conclusion follows only if we equate time with physical measures of time. This reductionistic view is clearly wrong. A sequence of mental events alone is sufficient to generate relations of earlier and later, wholly in the absence of any physical events. So if God were counting down to creation, “. . . , 3, 2, 1, Let there be light!” God would exist in time even if He were not in physical time (that is, the physical measure that stands for time in the General Theory of Relativity). So there could be a time at which God created the initial cosmological singularity, even if that moment is not in physical time. Even if God is, as you both say, timeless sans creation, His creating the universe can be simultaneous with the cosmic singularity. Such an appeal to metaphysics is not illicit because Hawking is making a metaphysical claim that God cannot create the universe because the singularity is not in physical time, a reductionistic move which no theist should accept.

In any case, even if we do accept this reductionistic move, all that follows is that God did not create the universe at a time. We can still say that God’s creating the universe was coincidentwith the singularity (that is, they occur together at the boundary of spacetime), and by creating the singularity God created the universe.

Finally, John, as to your question about scientism, the point is that there are truths which we grasp that are not scientifically accessible, among these aesthetic truths. The defender of scientism is forced to deny that there are any objective aesthetic judgements. Recognizing this fact simply raises the price of embracing scientism: you have to deny that anything—any scene, any music, any art—is really beautiful. If someone wants to hold that, fine; but for many of us the price exacted by a consistent scientism starts to look too high to pay. There’s no reason to adopt scientism, so if you think that there are objective judgements of beauty, as many of us think, you will reject the narrow epistemology of scientism.

- William Lane Craig