I was bored with Hawking’s statement about God before he even made it, but this zinger from Richard Lea at The Guardian is worth sharing. Reminding us that Hawking has far outsold his fellow scientists who have tried their hand at trade books precisely because of “his willingness to talk about God,” Lea observes: “You may not need God to create a universe, but a little religion goes a long way in creating a bestseller.”
Friday, September 3, 2010, 2:55 PM
September 3rd, 2010 | 3:55 pm
Hawkings sets the bar pretty high. He acknowledges the existence of the mathematical rules that invisibly govern the cosmos but can not link them to an Entity. What would falsify his claim? Would it take an anthromorphic cluster of stars to bend down to him and say, “Hi, I’m God.”?
September 3rd, 2010 | 3:58 pm
P.S. While we’re on the subject: It sure would be nice to see more of Wolfhart Pannenberg in FT!
September 3rd, 2010 | 4:16 pm
Unless the physicist in question has a strong background in theology, I don’t see why any physicist’s theological pronouncements should be any more interesting than a biologist’s predictions about the next NFL season.
September 3rd, 2010 | 6:10 pm
Mr. Hawking’s does not understand that every material object small and large is Created by and through God. There is nothing but darkness and oblivion in Mr. Hawking’s theory. The space we ocupy at this moment will, God has allready rolled up like a garment. The void God has put on a shelf, and is part of God’s Kingdom. Talking to peaple like Mr. Hawking’s is like talking to a tape recorder.
September 3rd, 2010 | 6:12 pm
Pastor Spomer,
Respectfully, I believe you are mistaken when you say “He acknowledges the existence of the mathematical rules that invisibly govern the cosmos but can not link them to an Entity”. You see, the “rules” or “laws”, as some describe them, are not governing the universe/ reality/ existence. The “rules of math”,”the laws of logic” and “the law of gravity” DESCRIBE the consistency of the behavior of the universe/ reality that we, as humans, perceive. We have created a language to describe that consistency. These “rules” and “laws” are not prescriptive to the universe/ reality/ existence – they are descriptive of the the universe/ reality/ existence.
September 3rd, 2010 | 6:15 pm
@Pastor: If there were an all-powerful God, he could do that, though, couldn’t he?
@Steven: That’s easy for you to say when you’ve never talked to him. Since you understand Dr Hawking’s theory so well, perhaps you could educate the rest of us on what he means by the universe spontaneously creating itself using the law of gravity.
September 3rd, 2010 | 7:54 pm
Dear Dustin,
I think the difference is linguistic. I happily concede that the math merely describes the “consistency of the behavior of the universe”. But it is that consistency to which I refer. We treat such consistency with justifiable suspicion when it’s farther down the epistemological line. Consistency in biology leads us to the chemistry. Consistency in the chemistry leads us to physics, physics to mathematics, mathematics to logic. When we reach the God part, suddenly our curiosity ends, and we’re satisfied to say, “Well, things just happen.” A statement which we would, in any other context, take as the height of being unscientific.
Dear DW,
“If there were an all-powerful God, he could do that, though, couldn’t he?”
Ah, forgive my duplicity, but you have fallen into my trap. He did do that. That is the Christ. He didn’t take the form of stars, (though for Dr. Hawking that might have been more persuasive.) He took a more relevant form, our form, the form of sinful, dying man, to redeem sinful, dying man. Dr. Hawking, like each of us, needs the Creator to come down in the form of our frail bodies to give us resurrection.
September 3rd, 2010 | 8:54 pm
Pastor Spomer,
“But it is that consistency to which I refer.”
The universe/ reality/ existence is, itself, consistent. Nature behaves as it behaves (a=a). Why posit a “Prime Mover” to govern that consistency when it is unnecessary and leads to a self-defeating, infinite regression?
September 3rd, 2010 | 11:09 pm
The universe/ reality/ existence is, itself, consistent. Nature behaves as it behaves (a=a). Why posit a “Prime Mover” to govern that consistency when it is unnecessary and leads to a self-defeating, infinite regression?
Because the current evidence all points to Nature being finite in time, in both directions?
Besides, Nature’s consistency explains its existence as well as iambic pentameter explains the existence of the plays of Shakespeare.
September 4th, 2010 | 3:18 am
“God” was rendered useless by entropy. it’s why it can no longer manage so much as a burning bush…
September 4th, 2010 | 6:20 am
As Bl John Henry Newman postulated “What are the phenomena of the external world, but a divine mode of conveying to the mind the realities of existence, individuality, and the influence of being on being, the best possible, though beguiling the imagination of most men with a harmless but unfounded belief in matter as distinct from the impressions on their senses? This at least is the opinion of some philosophers, and whether the particular theory be right or wrong, it serves as an illustration here of the great truth which we are considering.”
September 4th, 2010 | 8:14 am
Do I understand the proposition? There exists outside of space and time a sui generis physical law for which there is no lawgiver. It can call into being a material world ex nihilo, and from it all other physical laws derive their existence. But we do not call it God. We call it Gravity, an occult force that we all know is there, whose effects we observe and can describe but haven’t actually seen, but agree must be there because a prophet from Cambridge wrote a book of wisdom that says so. Hmmmm!
September 4th, 2010 | 10:03 am
Dustin,
The a=a approach isn’t the one we ever take, otherwise, one could stop at any point in one’s investigations: “Why do we see starlight bend around the sun during a total eclipse? That’s just how nature behaves.”
Western science has worked in part because it has operated on the belief that there is a more stable generality behind the seemingly chaotic particulars. As our knowledge has progressed, it has drawn toward simplification.
Aristotle and Plato, through different means, came to the conclusion that this simplification ended in a singularity. If the patternisation of the cosmos is analogous to a pyramid, God would be the point on the top. Hawking has climbed the pyramid, but has stopped short of the top. The surface of the top of his pyramid is small in area, but not pointed. It is made up of a small collection of equations and data. He views this as the ultimate top, not because there is nothing farther up, but because his methods (roughly: logical positivism) have been exhausted. But he refrains from seeing that the broad pattern of Western science (as it has been practiced) as both beginning and ending in the God hypothesis. Consequently, he (and every other scientist) have themselves provided a strong witness monotheism, even while being unaware of it.
Hawkings is an atheist, but to do science he has had to act like a theist. A person who believes and acts like an atheist is a sophist, or as we call them these days, a postmodernist. Such persons truly reject the cohesion that depends on monotheism.
Sorry for the long sermon.
September 4th, 2010 | 11:33 am
Mary,
“Because the current evidence all points to Nature being finite in time, in both directions?”
What evidence is that, Mary? What difference would it make if the universe were finite? Nothing has been proven to be infinite.
“Besides, Nature’s consistency explains its existence as well as iambic pentameter explains the existence of the plays of Shakespeare.”
Saying that Nature may not be consistent with itself is like saying “a” may not equal “a”. At that point you’re arguing against logic.
Also, 1 Timothy 2:12
September 4th, 2010 | 1:06 pm
@Pastor: Clearly, folk tales of God taking human form 2000 years ago is less than compelling evidence to the modern atheist. If God wants to change our minds, why doesn’t he?
September 4th, 2010 | 1:10 pm
Pardon the grammar fail… should have been “folk tales … ARE less than compelling”
September 4th, 2010 | 8:05 pm
DW,
He doesn’t want to change our minds, He wants to change us altogether. The chief task of Christianity is not merely to prove God’s existence. One doesn’t marry a girl because one is so absolutely sure that she exists.
September 5th, 2010 | 3:41 pm
Pastor Spomer,
“One doesn’t marry a girl because one is so absolutely sure that she exists.”
Likewise, one wouldn’t even consider marrying a girl that doesn’t exist.
September 5th, 2010 | 5:21 pm
He doesn’t want to change our minds, He wants to change us altogether. The chief task of Christianity is not merely to prove God’s existence. One doesn’t marry a girl because one is so absolutely sure that she exists.
Knowledge of God’s existence certainly isn’t sufficient to be a Christian but I think you would agree it is necessary. Likewise, I think you would agree it would be rather pathetic for a guy to want to marry a girl who may not even exist.
September 6th, 2010 | 6:57 am
Many modern philosophers of science would maintain that “The objective features of a phenomenon so little constrain the ways it is classified and theorized that these features can be disregarded in trying to understand why a particular classification system or scientific theory has been adopted.”
September 6th, 2010 | 10:44 am
Maybe I am missing something, but this controversy seems very simple to me.
Hawking can no more prove that there is or is not a God, than one can determine the winnner of a football game by applying the rules of basketball. Hawking uses empirical knowledge (applying the rules of the material world) to exclude the existence of a thing (God) that by definition is not governed by the rules of the material world.
Hawking insists he has scored a touchdown, but he is playing on a basketball court.
September 6th, 2010 | 2:50 pm
“He doesn’t want to change our minds, He wants to change us altogether. ”
Then why doesn’t he?
September 6th, 2010 | 3:39 pm
@DW, Agreed. God, if he exists, should know what would change my mind. Why doesn’t he/she/it just show me the evidence.
If I were God, my presence and objective would be so obvious, there would be no atheists. No one would be flying airplanes into buildings because they disagreed on my favorite pudding flavor.
September 6th, 2010 | 7:49 pm
Walter, it’s likely God has revealed Himself to you numerous times in your life but you haven’t been paying attention. You probably expect God to act like a (super)human, not God.
September 6th, 2010 | 11:05 pm
“it’s likely God has revealed Himself to you numerous times in your life but you haven’t been paying attention.”
How could that be? Is gods’ will ineffective? How could god reveal himself to someone ineffectively? Does god have a plan or not?
September 7th, 2010 | 12:57 am
Dustin,
Let’s see…hmmmm….is God imperfect or is man imperfect? Answer seems obvious to me.
God knocks but we have to answer the door.
If you’re not afraid to hear Him knocking, try reading this:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/library/sacredheart/trulve.htm
September 7th, 2010 | 1:57 pm
“Let’s see…hmmmm….is God imperfect or is man imperfect? Answer seems obvious to me.”
Obviously, the judeo-christian god doesn’t exist – by definition. That seems rather imperfect for a perfect entity to me.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:41 pm
Let me clarify what I meant by “the judeo-christian god doesn’t exist – by definition”.
OR mom, implied two things that make this statement true. God has a desire to reveal himself to humans and god is perfect. These two attributes contradict each other. A perfect being, by definition, would not have unfulfilled desires or require anything apart from itself.
September 7th, 2010 | 3:28 pm
Dustin, you are leaving free will and love out of the equation. If you loved a woman but she knew all about you and still had no use for you, would you kidnap her to get her attention so you could show her just how much you “loved” her? If that would be outrageous behavior for a human, how much more so for a God of perfect love?
September 7th, 2010 | 4:46 pm
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
Who has free will? According to the bible, god foreordained, from the beginning of time, those whom he has chosen and those whom he has condemned.
September 7th, 2010 | 5:44 pm
Foreknowledge and foreordained are not the same thing. Only a small segment of Christians believe in predestination.
It is true that no one can be saved except through grace but everyone receives grace whether they recognize it as such or not. We have the free will to accept or reject the saving grace God gives us. A true understanding of the nature of God and our relationship to Him (as much as any human is capable of) causes one to understand we cannot take our next breath or form our next thought without His allowing it. The fact that such a Being allows us to reject Him and offend Him while offering us endless mercy and forgiveness is beyond our understanding of love.
September 7th, 2010 | 7:45 pm
“God knocks but we have to answer the door.”
Please provide me an example of God knocking.
September 7th, 2010 | 7:45 pm
“Foreknowledge and foreordained are not the same thing. Only a small segment of Christians believe in predestination.”
In this context they do mean the same thing. God is the author and creator according to the bible.
September 8th, 2010 | 4:35 pm
DW: “Please provide me an example of God knocking.”
God speaks to people in different ways, so it’s hard to say, without knowing you, how He might try to get your attention.
Some common examples for a non-believer might be a sense of overwhelming awe at the birth of a child or looking up at an immense starry sky – something that makes a person realize how powerless they are. Really pondering the miracle of a newborn or the vastness of the Universe might open the door a crack to God and make one more aware of His presence the next time He knocks.
Or it might be an instant of doubt about their atheism or agnosticism when they read something about God that makes sense or feels right in the gut – just before they shut down the feeling ;). Following that feeling with an open mind (answering the knock) could be all it takes to find faith in God.
September 8th, 2010 | 5:06 pm
@OR mom: But if God “knocks” and I don’t hear it, hasn’t God failed to get my attention? How is that possible, if he’s all-powerful?
September 8th, 2010 | 8:28 pm
DW: If you don’t “hear” it that’s on you, not God, especially for someone on this forum.
No offense but I get a mental picture of an atheist/agnostic asking where God is and when He answers they’re squeezing their eyes shut, fingers in their ears, singing ” La, la, la, la ……, I can’t hear you….la, la, la….”.
September 9th, 2010 | 11:32 am
But OR mom, if God is unable to make me “hear,” then he’s not all-powerful, is he? If he was, he could. I shouldn’t be able to resist him unless he allows me to.
September 9th, 2010 | 6:19 pm
DW: “I shouldn’t be able to resist him unless he allows me to.”
Which is exactly what He does because He gave you free will. I am re-posting my former comment to Dustin that addresses your question.
… you are leaving free will and love out of the equation. If you loved a woman but she knew all about you and still had no use for you, would you kidnap her to get her attention so you could show her just how much you “loved” her? If that would be outrageous behavior for a human, how much more so for a God of perfect love?
September 9th, 2010 | 7:04 pm
@OR mom: God proving his existence to me has nothing to do with free will. He’s all-powerful, so if he wanted to prove his existence to me, he could. If he tries and is unable, then he’s not all-powerful.
People don’t choose their beliefs. They’re either convinced of something or they’re not. If God exists, then he could convince me. If he were all-knowing, he would know exactly what it would take to convince me; if he were all-powerful, he could then provide me with that.
The fact that I have not been provided with compelling evidence for his existence is further evidence for his non-existence.
September 9th, 2010 | 7:55 pm
DW: “The fact that I have not been provided with compelling evidence for his existence is further evidence for his non-existence.”
I understand what you are saying. But we don’t get to tell God how to act. God cannot be manipulated. You don’t get to be the determiner of how, why, or when He touches you. All you can do is be receptive. If you are, you will come to know Him but it will be on His terms and His timetable.
Believe me, the fact that you bother to even write your questions is evidence of God in your life. You are thinking about Him when there are so many other things you could be doing.
September 10th, 2010 | 9:54 am
So if I chose to comment on postings about unicorns, would that be evidence of them in my life?
As for “telling God how to act,” I’m merely stating that if such a thing existed, it would be very easy for it to convince me of that. The fact that this has not happened is simply part of the overwhelming body of information and experiences that support the idea that there are no gods.
September 10th, 2010 | 5:15 pm
DW: You continue to insist that God has to do all the work in convincing you. Why? All relationships are a 2-way street. God has put all kinds of evidence of His existence out there for anyone who wants to see it. Why are you so special that you can’t be convinced by the same things so many others find convincing? The majority of humans in this world believe in some kind of Supreme Being – why not you? Why isn’t it up to you to earnestly seek and keep an open mind and make the choice to wait on God as He waits on you?
Are you waiting for something dramatic like God knocking Saul off his horse? Saul was a devout Jew and was already open to recognizing the hand of God. There are plenty of unbelievers stubborn enough to deny God even if He were to knock them off a horse and speak to them from a cloud. Unbelievers hear and see God everyday but they choose to deny it’s Him. If you are hung up on the idea of a Judeo-Christian God, then forget that image and just try to be open to the idea of a Creator. What is important is to start believing you are more than a cosmic accident.
September 10th, 2010 | 6:42 pm
“God has put all kinds of evidence of His existence out there for anyone who wants to see it. ”
Give me one example of such evidence.
“Why isn’t it up to you to earnestly seek and keep an open mind and make the choice to wait on God as He waits on you?”
You’re suggesting that I’m not open-minded. Quite the contrary. I will believe anything, as long as there is compelling evidence to support it. There is no such evidence for the existence of deities.
“Unbelievers hear and see God everyday but they choose to deny it’s Him. ”
Example?
“If you are hung up on the idea of a Judeo-Christian God, then forget that image and just try to be open to the idea of a Creator.”
How about multiple gods and goddesses? Would you suggest that I be open-minded to such a possibility? Are you?
“What is important is to start believing you are more than a cosmic accident.”
Who said I believed that?
September 10th, 2010 | 7:34 pm
“Give me one example of such evidence.”
I already gave you several a number of posts back.
“You’re suggesting that I’m not open-minded. Quite the contrary. I will believe anything, as long as there is compelling evidence to support it. There is no such evidence for the existence of deities.”
What evidence do you consider compelling?
“Example?” (of God)
See answer #1.
“How about multiple gods and goddesses? Would you suggest that I be open-minded to such a possibility? Are you?”
It might be a start for you to believe in any Beings greater than yourself. I’m not open to it because it’s not my belief of who God is.
“Who said I believed that?”
It was my assumption. What else could you be if there is no Intelligent Creator with a purpose?
September 12th, 2010 | 10:46 am
(In order of your replies:)
So emotional responses to things are evidence for the existence of God? Science has a pretty good understanding the physiology of emotions in terms of brain chemistry; we don’t need God to explain them.
Compelling evidence for God would have to be pretty extraordinary, given the extraordinary nature of the claim that such a being exists. I’m quite sure God could come up with something that would convince me. Again, if he can’t, then he’s not all-powerful.
Having an emotional response to something and understanding that’s all it is doesn’t mean that atheists see God every day and deny it. They just have emotional responses to things.
Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to suggest that I be open to all possibilities if you yourself are not?
As for your final reply: false dichotomy. Why is that no God means everything happens by accident? One does not follow from the other.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact