What's Hawking's position on the whole God thing?

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2006-04-21 11:05am

I got involved in a bit of a debate elsewhere about the existence of god with a guy who's keen on appeals to authority his most recent being to Stephen Hawking:

Timo wrote:Firstly, I make no claim that Aquinas' theory of 'contingent being' is enshrined in absolute, intrinsic truth. I merely offer it as an interesting example of an attempt to argue for the existence of God. The theory is actually a cornerstone of Roman Catholic theology, of which I, as a protestant, harbour serious reservations.

Secondly, I am familiar with Quantum theory. Stephen Hawking has suggested that if we were to combine Quantum Mechanics with Relativity [ Einstein's theory which explains the force of gravity in terms of four-dimensional space-time curvature, and posits that the laws of science should be the same for all observers regardless of how they are moving], there is the possibility that space/time form a finite, four-dimensional space without boundaries. This might explain many features of the known universe, such as what Hawking refers to as , 'large-scale uniformity', and small-scale departures from this homogeneity like galaxies and Homo Sapiens. However, if the universe is 'self-contained' and came 'from nothing' [in your words], it is undeniable that there are implications for the idea of a creative deity.

Hawking goes on to suggest that, even if the 'no boundaries' theory of the universe is correct, and God has no freedom to choose the 'initial conditions', he would still have the freedom to 'choose the laws that the universe obeyed'. Having said this, Quantum theory is no longer viewed as an unassailable, unified theory. There are rival 'unified theories' such as heterotic string theory which appear self-consistent and, as Hawking puts it, 'allow the existence of structures as complicated as human beings who can investigate the laws of the universe and ask about the nature of God'. Maybe all 'unified' theories are merely sets of rules/regulations? Hawking, and other physicists often acknowledge that mathematical models are unable to answer the question of why the universe exists in the first instance. As Hawking has himself pondered , 'Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?'

I have neither the time nor the patience to slog through Hawking’s writings to see if this is a true representation of his position, can anybody save me the trouble?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-04-21 11:18am

Hawking, as far as I know, is a Deist. He's also a bit of a smartass.(The easiest way to prove there is no travel into the past is asking why we are not overflowing with tourists.)

He is pulling from his ass, though. Hawking's belief in a Deistic god is likely the same as that of Einstein's or the Founding Father's. Moreover, he's bullshitting on why the universe came to be; it simply did. That is the observational truth. Of course, given the fact that the universe is all of temporal existance, it might be it's own cause(As anything cause the Universe to start is not within time as we know it, therefore casuality isn't necessarily in play).

That he describes QM as a unified theory is horseshit. QM and Relativity are what must be unified! While aspects of QM are indeed in question, the majority is not.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-04-21 11:23am

I always got the impression that even Hawking thinks he's a bit overrated within the mainstream media.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-04-21 11:29am

In the follow-up book to "A Brief History of Time" Hawking said that he felt the addition of the "God" part at the end significantly boosted his sales. I'll bet Mr. Fundie didn't bother quoting THAT

haard · Post by **haard** » 2006-04-21 11:34am

Timo wrote:Secondly, I am familiar with Quantum theory.

Timo wrote:Having said this, Quantum theory is no longer viewed as an unassailable, unified theory.

Well, since quantum theory has never been viewed as an unnassailable, unified theory, he obviously knows less of quantum theory than I do - and I'm a freakin' software engineer. (Which has little to none to do with real engineering, by the way).

Timo wrote:Maybe all 'unified' theories are merely sets of rules/regulations?

All of them? He has no idea what a unified theory is or would be, has he?

Besides, although Hawking might be a deist, he has never shown any proof that God exists, so that's just his little personal teddy-bear, after all.

Timo wrote:As Hawking has himself pondered , 'Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?'

And there you have it; Hawking wants to belive in God, or wants people to belive he does, but does not even say it outright - what does that tell you about the strength of his belif?

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-04-21 11:56am

Appeal to authority is always bullshit, but I recall reading an article from about 10 years ago (in the Reader's Digest, of all publications...) where he gave a definite 'No' when he was asked if he believes in God.

Anyway he's just pointing to the fact that physics is NOT metaphysics and putting these words in Hawking's mouth, which I'm pretty sure he's making up. Ask him for his sources.

Sans_Deity · Post by **Sans_Deity** » 2006-04-21 12:29pm

http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php? ... en_Hawking

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2006-04-21 03:00pm

Last I heard, Hawking is an atheist, but had admitted that he waffled on the God issue, due to worries over harassment from the English Church and pressure from his wife. Supposedly his atheism was a major factor in him divorcing her.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2006-04-21 03:04pm

I thought his wife loved him and did a lot to take care of him...

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2006-04-21 04:01pm

Sans_Deity wrote:http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php? ... en_Hawking

That's an interesting site.

In an August 1997 interview in GQ, Sorvino was extremely candid about her lack of religious belief: "When you are a Christian, your law is laid our for you in codified form. You can have some kind of debate about this or that, but basically you're supposed to accept God's will. There is no argument about whether there is a definitive right and wrong. And once you know this law, nobody else can be right unless they agree with you. And so you wind up with, 'You are wrong. You are mistaken. You are sinning. You are in error.' I find that extremely restrictive and impossible... Think, just think, about how every last man and woman and child of the Pharisees was killed for their blasphemy and their infidelity when their greatest crime was they were mistaken. So they believed in the wrong God--they should be killed for this? Is this justice? Is it?" When the interviewer challenged her about her beliefs, Sorvino replied, "No, this is not what a fair God would do. And why does it not say anywhere in the Bible that slavery is wrong? It only says that you should treat your slaves well. Well, I don't care if you treat them well. How is it possible that it is not immoral to own another person? Why isn't that one of the Ten Commandments? 'Thou shalt not own another person.' You want to sit here and tell me that fornication is worse than owning someone?"

I never would have picked Mira Sorvino. Bright girl.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-04-21 05:41pm

Yeah, she is. I'm not certain, but I think she is also a Mensa member. Could be mistaking her for Sharon Stone tho.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-04-21 06:07pm

However, if the universe is 'self-contained' and came 'from nothing' [in your words], it is undeniable that there are implications for the idea of a creative deity.

Don't you love how he states his claim, and expects you to provide the argument for it?