Hawking's Statement

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I gave a brief answer in another thread, but I have written the blog on this issue.

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Hello readers and welcome back to Deeper Waters, a blog dedicated to diving into the ocean of truth! I do have another project in the works, but I am going to be taking a little vacation this Sunday. The wife and I are going on a trip to see her family for an annual get-together the family has with other friends. I wish to wait until I get back before I do anything on the project. Of course, if I need to change the plan of the next project, I can do that. For now, I’d like to comment on a story that hit the news today.

The story comes from an announcement by Stephen Hawking that God did not create the universe. The news can be found here

What do I have to say about this? First off, I have a problem with so many atheists who want Christians to remain quiet on scientific issues without proper study. Is my problem with that position? No. I don’t think we Christians should speak authoritatively on science unless we’ve really done the proper study on science. However, I think the sword cuts both ways and scientists should not comment on philosophy and/or theology without the proper study. A work such as Richard Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” shows just what happens when someone comments without proper study. Anyone who thinks that book makes a persuasive case is just uninformed on the topics.

Second, I wonder what is going on when I am told however that the universe came from nothing. Nothing is non-existence. It has no properties. You cannot say anything about it. You can only say what it is not really. It is not anything ultimately. Am I to believe non-existence is capable of bringing about existence? Now I do know physicists and others can use the word “nothing” differently than I do as a philosopher, but if they have something in mind, they do not have nothing in mind.

Third, this doesn’t answer the question of existence. What is the basis for existence? Existence does not come from non-existence. Not only what is the cause of the universe coming into existence, which is a deep enough problem, but what is the cause of the universe existing?

Now someone can reply “Well what about the cause of God?” This is a question acceptable if you’re in Sunday School. It’s not one if you’re trying to be a serious philosopher. God’s very nature is His existence, as we saw in our study on the doctrine of God. Existence does not need a cause.

How do we know the universe is not exempt? Because we have evidence that the universe came into being first off. Second, even if it didn’t, the universe is also changing. It is growing older and it is losing usable energy. It is moving from one state of existence to another. My getting up and walking across the room would be a change in existence. The universe is in time and is bound by matter. Whatever is material is not the ultimate cause of all things since it is matter + form + existence.

Finally, Christians also have other arguments for God’s existence, such as the argument from morality, the argument from beauty, and the evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Unfortunately in our world, science is taken to be the final authority. Science is great, if you want to do science. It’s not the tool to use however to do philosophy, theology, history, mathematics, etc. Now there is some overlap in these areas no doubt. But theology is primarily about God even if it uses philosophy and history. Those areas are just tools used by the science of theology to study its main subject, God. Being a physicist does not mean you’re qualified as a metaphysician.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

And now a blog on Hawking's appearance on Larry King.

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! A couple of months ago, Stephen Hawking and others appeared on an episode of Larry King and tonight, we will interact with the first part of just what Hawking said. A link to a video of it can be found here while a transcript can be found here.

Now as one who can count as disabled, I do have a great respect for Hawking overcoming so much of what he has in spite of ALS. However, that does not mean that his ideas cannot be touched. In fact, I think he makes the mistake of many scientists where he assumes a scientism that cannot be proven by science itself yet seeks to say all truth is provable by science.

I will also grant that for the sake of argument that some of what Hawking here is saying could be shortened responses since he is in a chair and has limited movement and thus wants to make his answers as succinct as possible.

To begin with, Hawking does think that the scientific account is complete. Of course, this could depend on the scientific account of what? Do we have a complete account for instance of how life came into existence? Do we have an account so complete in any field that that means we stop looking? For all the talk about ID being a science stopper, it would seem that if Hawking is correct, this is just as much a science stopper.

He then adds that theology is unnecessary, but does this follow? Let us suppose that we had answered every scientific question that could be. Does that mean theology is unnecessary? That would mean that all knowledge of God is scientific knowledge. Now properly understood, science refers to a body of knowledge. In that case, theology is a science, but it’s extremely doubtful that Hawking means it in this way.

The only way this is unnecessary is that the case is true that there is no God, but Hawking has not established that. He could have a case for the existence of something, which I doubt, but what of the existing of something? Does he have a case? He never directly answers “Why is there something rather than nothing at all?”

However, even if someone doesn’t believe God exists, it is still important to them to study theology. Why? Several people in this world, myself included of course, do believe that God does exist and if you’re going to critique their views rightly, you need to study those views. The new atheists would do well to learn this.

As for his theory, Hawking does treat it as if it explains everything, but he has not explained how it does. Now he could explain that more in his book, but the audience is left to wonder. What is it that gravity works on? Where did the law of gravity come from? How can nothing act in any way to produce something?

Hawking also says people are reacting because science is answering questions that used to be the province of religion. I would very much like to know what these questions are. It is as if Hawking is arguing against a god-of-the-gaps mentality, but could it be that the atheistic world has created this mentality as well? After all, the early Christians saw no threat to doing science and saw it as explaining HOW God was working in the world.

Finally, Hawking says his great hero is Galileo, who believed in the power of observation. The reality is, so did every other scientist. What else did they base their findings on? Naturally, they had their presuppositions, but they also observed the world around them. We have seen earlier other concerns with Galileo. He was right, but he did not have sufficient evidence.

Tomorrow, we will look more at how the discussion plays out with the other panelists.